the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226. the nays are 193. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 229 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 230, the nays are 188, theres. -- the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. he house will be in order. would members take their conversations from the floor, clear the aisle, clear the well. let the house be in order. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or incurs ich the motion

objection under clause 6 of rule 20. votes will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2640. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: union calendar, a bill to adjust the rivers act to provide opportunity for the city of primeville, oregon and or other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman, mr. young, and the gentleman, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative day to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. young: i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: h.r. 2640 is an important step to restoring water and pow for the abundance to an area devastated by federal logging restrictions. this bill is a reflection of of negotiating and is identical to the bill this chamber passed last year without opposition. its supporters include those -- ormally would be water i want to commend my good friend mr. walden for his work. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. grijalva: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 2640, as my colleague describes, does several things including providing water and economic certainty to the irrigation district. the legislation also allows reclamation to operate and to allow reservoir the provision. we understand it will provide the certainty the city needs while protecting -- protecting the environment. we look forward to working with our colleagues in the senate and on the other side of the aisle to ensure that all the needs are met and protected. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from alaska.

mr. young: i yield whatever time he may consume to mr. walden. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: chairman young, thank you for your help on this, chairman hastings as well and mr. grijalva, thank you for your comments. i want to thank representative defazio for his work on this, among many others. as was pointed out in 2012, this bill passed the house unanimously. i'm glad to see this legislation is once again before this chamber. the legislation is a collaborative effort between the city of primeville, the river conservancy and we worked through the confederated tribes among others. i'm grateful for their efforts in creating and moving this legislation forward this bill will create jobs in central oregon, will remove government red tape. this is a photo of bowman dam, this is what we're talking about. when the wild and scenic designation was passed by congress they arbitraryly and temporarily, at the time, this was decades ago, placed the wild and scenic designation

line right here on the yellow stripe of the road. i told people the only thing wild and scenic about a dam is if you're falling over the face of it and tumbling b down. then it might be wild and scenic. what we seek to do is move this bundry off the center of this dam and go down about a quarter mile where the river really becomes natural. we're sult of that, then pretty well convinced a company will come in and add clean, renewble hydropow for the a hydrofacility a generation facility, on the dam. the result of that is, then, the water will come out with less gasification so it will be better for fish. we'll get about 50 construction jobs for two year, good-paying construction jobs for two years as they install the hide row facility here, get enough hydroelectricity to light i think 500 homes. the water will come out from a

different place and be better for the fish going forward and all we do is move the scenic boundary down to where, frankly, where everyone would agree it should have been, not the center line of the too much the dam where cars drive over it but rather down a quarter mile. in addition to that, this facility, about 20 miles upriver from primeville is a reclamation project that holds about 80,000 acre-feet of uncontracted water. that's part of the discussion, what do you do with ncontracted water. this is rare to have a facility where the water hasn't been determine wesmed don't deal with that here other than to make sure primeville has access to that 6%, about 151 acre-feet of water. why is that important? the city of primeville is con scricted and this is a city with high unemployment. it would make sure they get

about 180 acre-feet of water, that extra water would allow the city to meet its residential needs, which it cannot do today, but also allow it to engage in more economic development, which it desperately needs to do this water issue came to our attention initially because facebook was planning and has since constructed a data center which they've now doubled in size. aple is also constructing a data center there. both need water for cooling. they've been able to be more efficient about how they do that but they still need water. because the city would access the water through the ground, not from directly behind the dam, the water actually flows downstream, i think in excess of about 20 mile which is better for the fish to have that much more water released. and the city would through their underground pumps pump the water out. in dry year, particularly in the winter this higher release requirement would benefit fish and wildlife, including the

blue ribbon troult fishery below the dam. it fix this is problem with the wild and scenic designation, creates the 50 jobs, additionally the bill expedites a restoration project. this is something we worked closely we this warm springs tribal leaders on because it would increase water flows for trout and steelhead this -- this has long been supported by the warm springs tribe and the river conservancy. i want to thank them for their work on this issue. and especially the creek. it's a good, commonsense conservation project. s that good, commonsense job creation bill, the culmination of years of work in a collaborative effort. i want to thank the mayor of primeville, he's testified before the committee on a couple of occasions, judge mccabe has been terrific as have many others as we move this forward. this is a jobs bill.

that doesn't cost the government anything. it's a good, clean water bill that helps a community provide jobs and take care of its citizens and it resolves a long problem that has been a problem for this area, actually this debate has con on gins mark hatfield was in the senate in the 1970's. i appreciate the committee's diligent efforts on this and the bipartisan way we're moving forward on this piece of legislation and with that, mr. chairman, i would ask for your unanimous support of this bill and yield back the time to the hairman from alaska. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for his presentation, he's done an excellent job. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i have no further speakers and i yield back. mr. young: i have no further speakers and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2640. those in favor say aye. posees. -- those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider slade on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. young: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 263 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: union calendar number 176, h.r. 263, a bill to convey certain propt in alaska from the united states to the alaska native tribal health consortium. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from alaska, mr. young and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. young: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: h.r. 623 transfers by

warranty deed 2.79 acre parcels of federally owned land in anchorage, alaska, for the indian health service of the alaskan native tribal health consortium. it is a nonprofit authorized by the congress to render health services to alaska natives under a contract with indian health service. the land has been used for parking to accommodate nearby facilities run by the conorganization yum indian health service. it will be used to construct a patient health facility thereby expanding its capacity to offer vital health services to alaska native patients. some of whom travel great distance from rural areas to receive care. following a subcommittee hearing on the bill in may, this indian health service administrate nveyed the land by quit deed claim. it remains before transferring land and provides clean title to the property. the bill has also referred to

the committee on energy and commerce. the chairman of that committee, mr. upton, has kindly foregone action on the bill. i thank him for his cooperation and i have an exchange of letters memberorizing our agreement. it will have no significant impact on the federal budget. will not affect direct spending on revenues. h.r. 623 is a novepb controversial. i hope the house will pass it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. grijalva: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: the alaska native tribal health consosh yum was teashed in 1997 to provide health services to the alaska natives. it now serves over 130,000 patients from all over the state. h.r. 623 conveys 2.79 acres of federal land in anchorage,

alaska, to the consortium. it will be used to construct patient housing for visiting patients, allowing continued growth so that the anchorage facility can meet the health care needs of more and more people from rural alaska. some patients travel long distances to access health care facilities in anchorage. h.r. 623 helps ensure that traveling patients are not burdened with finding their own accommodation. this is an important component of making sure that all native alaskans have access to equitable health care. i am happy to report that the indian health services transferred the paragraphs until question by quit claim deed on june 20 of this year. while the consortium -- now the consortium is able to start planning in preparation for patient housing. h.r. 623 transfers the parcel to the consortium by warranty deed. this removes further complications and guarantees that there will be no hiccups in the development of additional patient housing on this anchorage site. we support h.r. 623, urge its

passage by the house today. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from alaska. mr. young: i want to thank the gentleman for having commented on this bill and supporting it. i have no other speakers. if he has no further speakers i'm ready to yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yield back his time? mr. grijalva: yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 623 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is thravenlt -- is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, morph to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 330. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house calendar number 26. h.r. 330. a bill to designate a distinguished flying cross national memorial at the march field air museum in riverside, california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will

control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that -- that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. young: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: mr. speaker, h.r. 330 designates the memorial located on march field air museum in riverside, california, as a distinguished flying cross national memorial in honor of current and former members of the armed services who have been awarded the distinguished flying cross. this national memorial will not be a unit of the national park system. the designation does not require or permit any expenditures of federal moneys. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 330 which has patched the house as part of the most recent department of defense authorization bill by a vote of 392-1. at this time i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. grijalva: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you. h.r. 330 designates the memorial at the march field air museum in riverside, california, as the distinguished flying cross national memorial. the memorial to recipients of the u.s. air force distinguished flying cross was dedicated on october 27, 2010, and since then it stands as a proud symbol of remembrance and honor for all members of the u.s. armed forces who have demonstrated heroism and extraordinary achievement the distinguished flying cross is the oldest military award for aviation, but there is no national memorial to recognize the sacrifice and commitment of these brave men and women. we support h.r. 330. urge passage by the house. and reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: at this time, mr. speaker, i yield such time he may consume to mr. calvert, the author of the bill. outstanding member from california. i yield to him.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i thank the gentleman from alaska. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 330, a bill to designate the national distinguished flying cross memorial in riverside, california. memorial honors all current and former members of the armed forces who have been awarded the distinguished flying cross. for the past two congresses, the house has overwhelmingly passed a bill and today i stand again in support of h.r. 330, which would designate the memorial at march field air museum as the distinguished flying cross national memorial. legislation is supported by the distinguished flying cross society, the military officers association of america, the air force association, the air force sergeants association, the association of naval aviation, the vietnam helicopter pilots association, and the china-burr ma veterans association. i'd like to point out the language in the bill specifically states that the

designation shall not be construed to require or permit federal funds to be expended for any purpose related to the national memorial. funds have been and will continue to be raised through private means for these purposes. the distinguished flying cross recipients have received the prestigious medal for their heroism and extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight while serving in any capacity within the united states armed forces. there are many well-known people int have played a vital role the history of the military aviation and received the award. this renowned group includes captain charles l. lindburgh, former president george h.w. bush, brigadier general jimmy doolittle, general curtis la may, senator john mccain, senator george mcgovern, jimmy stewart, and admiral jim stock dale to name a few.

the march air force reserve base of the t the c-17-a's air mobility wing is adjacent to the location of the memorial at the museum. visitors are able to witness active operational air units, providing support to our troops around the world, which is an appropriate setting that honors the many aviators who have distinguished themselves by deeds performed in aerial flight. aid like to thank those who worked tirelessly to ensure this mom morial was built and properly designated to honor the distinguished aviators that have served this great nation. in particular i'd like to recognize jim, late wife, trish, distinguished flying cross society's president, chuck sweeney, and the society's historian, dr. barry lamann, who was instrumental in this effort. again i hope you'll join me in supporting the designation of the national distinguished flying cross memorial at march field air museum and h.r. 330. thank you. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. to the gentleman from riverside, california, an original co-sponsor of this legislation, representative takano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: i thank the gentleman from arizona for yielding time. mr. speaker, i rise today to support the distinguished flying cross national memorial act which would designate the distinguished flying cross memorial currently under construction at march airfield museum in riverside county as a national memorial. established by congress in 1926, the distinguished flying cross has been awarded to tens of thousands of americans and gives recognition to members of our armed forces for heroism in aerial flight. this legislation could not be more important as there is no national memorial for these brave men and women. i believe that it is our duty to properly honor our heroes for their service.

in addition to its bipartisan support, this legislation also has the backing of countless veterans and military organizations, including the distinguished flying cross society, the military officers association of america, the air force association, the air force sergeants association, the association of naval aviation, and the vietnam helicopter pilots association. i was proud to introduce this legislation with my republican colleague from -- representative ken calvert, and hope we can continue to work together on issues such as this because our region has deep military roots. i would also like to express my gratitude to california senators barbara boxer and dianne feinstein, along with senator bill nelson of florida who introduced the senate version of this bill. let's honor these heroes, mr. speaker, and pass the distinguished flying cross national memorial act. thank you.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i inquire do you have any further speakers? mr. grijalva: mr. speaker, we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yields back his time of the the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i yield back the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 330. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid pon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2337. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 143, h.r. 2337, a bill to provide for the conveyance of the forest service lake hill administrative site in summitt county, colorado. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask

unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. young: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: h.r. 2337, authorized support service convey approximately 40 acres to the white river national forest to summit county, colorado. this parcel sandwiched between interstate 70 and a local highway, and largely isolated from the rest of the white river national forest would be utilized to construct affordable work force housing. this conveyance will benefit both the country and forest service by eliminating the agency's management over this isolated parcel. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. grijalva: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: h.r. 2337 conveys approximately 40 acres of forest

service land to the lake hill -- called the lake hill administrative site in the white river national forest to summit county, colorado. it is established as a site lost its national forest character and severed from the rest of the white river national forest. it will use the site to construct affordable work housing. summit county will cover all costs associated with the conveyance and forest service will be able to use any proceeds to address regional forest management issues. h.r. 2337 is a great example of the federal government working with local governments to identify and solve common problems. congressman polis is to be commended for his leadership in addressing the needs of his constituents using commonsense practical solutions. we support the legislation. urge its passage and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. i yield as much time as he may consume to the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i want to thank the chair and ranking member for their hearing as well as the support of this bill. for those of us who represent areas of the country where the federal government is a major landowner, it's absolutely critical to be able to work with this body to have the flexibility we need to meet the needs of our community. their the result of study they saw that the land didn't have the characteristics of wildlife habitation but it was ideal for housing a community. which is a real need. people who work in our thriving mountain communities need to live near where they work to be able to get their cars and vehicle office the road, for families to be able to afford

to live in the area. t's a critical need. the county commissioners and knew moves any palities have come together around finding a real-life solution for it this bill is the first step, h.r. 2337 conveys a 40-acre parcel known as the lake hill site to summit county for fair market value. summit county will pay for all of the administrative costs associated with the conveyance and as a result the congressional budget office estimate this is bill has no cost prosm seeds from the sale will support a much-needed u.s. forest service facility improvement and maintenance which is absolutely critical to be able to be able to do their job as stewards of our federal lands which is one of our main economic drivers for jobs as well as the quality lifestyle in summit county. this bill had input from a variety of stake holders, received broad community

support from communities in summit county and from local businesses and individuals. in july the natural resources committee arrived in bill by unanimous consent. our senators have introtused a companion bill, senate bill 1305, which will be considered in the committee in the weeks ahead this website was selected for sale because it no longer has national forest character. the parcel sits between an interstate to the north and highway to the south and condominiums to the west. the parcel is heavily logged and has unsightly infrastructure. as a result it's no longer suitable for wildlife habitat or recreation purpose bus it is ideally suitable for adegreesal housing to reflect the needs of our growing community. fortunately, lake hill can provide a great community purpose. affordable housing availability is a critical problem in summit county. increasingly, families that work in summit county are having a harder and harder time living in summit county. in the winter approximately one

third of the summit county work force has to commute into the county, sometimes 45-minute or hour-long community commutes because local housing prices are too high for many who work in the community to live there. nearly 40% of summit county residents are paying more for housing than they can afford. there's also a substantial housing gap in the face of the population. the number of seniors increased faster in summit county than any other county in colorado. latino households have doubled in the last decade, comp midsing 15% of the county's pop ligs. there's a real need for affordable housing options to meet the demands of our growing work force and the needs of our economy, a need that will only become more urgent over time. a lot of work remains to be done to put together the community partnership to look at the design elements and how this will work for the community but this critical step can only occur here in the united states congress which is a transference of the lake hill site. it will be a perfect setting for aed forable housing.

the properties located in the -- property is located in the heart of summit county, near public transit that's already available this bill is a win-win. it adds affordable housing options while providing funding for the u.s. forest service to improve u.s. forest service administrative facilities. i urge my colleagues to support this essential legislation that contributes to the greater well being of the county and our community. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i yield back. mr. young: i yield back. the speaker: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2337. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speakering for sunt to house resolution 391, i call up h.r. 2374, the retail investor protection act and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: unocalen darp number 168 a bill to amend the securities and exchange act of 1934 to provide protection for retail customers and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 391, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on financial services printed in

the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rule committees print 113-23 is adopt and the bill as amended is considered read. after one hour of debate on the bill as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in house report 113-253 if offered by the gentleman from california, in george miller, or his designee which shall be considered read and separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the record on h.r. 2374, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: i yield myself such time as i i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. hensarling: at a time that the american people demand and deserve that democrats and republicans work together to fix real problems in our nation today, this body has the opportunity to do just that. today the house will consider h.r. 2374, the retail investor protection act. the bill has strong support from both democrats and republicans. in fact, it passed the financial service committees earlier this year on a strong bipartisan recorded vote including half, half of our committee's democrats. h.r. 2374 will ensure that hardworking families and individuals throughout our country who are trying to save for their retirements, save for their children's college education, saving for their first home, are not harmed by confusing, costly regulations coming out of washington. mr. speaker, all americans know that a flood -- a flood -- of shington red tape has hurt our economy. that's why tens of millions of our fellow countrymen remain unemployeed or underemployed. unfortunately, more regulations

are on the way. specifically today, mr. speaker, we are speaking about the securities and exchange commission and the department of labor who are headed toward proposing two massive and inconsistent rule makings. they're going to hurt the ability of retail investors to get financial advice that they need for their portion of the american dream. mr. speaker, retail investors are not big-time professionals on wall street. retail investors had no role in causing the financial crisis. and they should not be punished for it which reglet -- which regrettably this rule making could do. rather retailers are hardworking citizens from our congressional districts who buy and sell securities for thems, their families and their futures, not for a company. in this struggling economy, the people who need it most, what are the s.e.c. and the department of labor planning to do? they're planning to make it harder and more expensive for

these americans to get a financial -- to get financial advice they both want and need. perhaps even more incredibly, the s.e.c., the securities and exchange commission, is moving forward with this new regulation even though the agency has failed to provide any evidence that it would better protect investors. so the securities and exchange commission apparently is going to regulate first, ask questions later. that makes no sense for millions of struggling americans trying to save for the future. mr. speaker, again, we know that millions of middle class families are sitting around their kitchen tables, struggling to save and invest in order to make ends meet and every day millions of them turn to financial professionals for advice. and yet here it comes from washington, regulations that will make that advice either unavailable or unaffordable. so fewer americans will get the advice they need. that's unfair. let me provide you a couple of

examples, mr. speaker. under the current suitability standard, an investor can have an account with a low-cost online broker with whom he or she can both make trades and get investment advice. due to technological advances and the relatively low cost associated with operating an online plat forl, these brokers can offer trades and investment advice for $7. should a fiduciary standard be applied to these brokers, the impact on investors could be higher fee prs trade, higher fees for investment advice or brokers may stop providing this investment advice to less affluent customers altogether. that is not fair. take the example of the single mother who supports her mother and wants to save for her daughter's college education. she is finally, finally saved enough money to open up and i.r.a. with $2,000 in savings. but we know that should these

rules continue to be promulgated with these new washington regulations, this lady may be told she now needs $25,000 in order to open up the very same account. again, mr. speaker, patently unfair. how about a middle-aged father who works with a financial professional he wants the professional to get him access to products and ideas instead of managing his investment portfolio for him he wants to trade individual bonds but potential regulations may not allow the financial professional to offer him bonds on a basis. the father either gets worse execution prices and ends up paying more. the gentlelady from missouri, ms. wagner, has introduced a commonsense bill, the retail investor protection act, and i and the rest of the committee who has voted for it congratulate her for her great work. this would require the section

to first consider the -- the s.e.c. to first consider the potential impacts its proposed legislation will have on investor, especially those with low to moderate incomes who would lose access to investment advice they need. it would coordinate between the s.e.c. and department of labor. they'll have to sequence their rule makings with the s.e.c. going first so there will be no inconsistent rules that end up confusing and costing investors. the retail investor protection act will avoid regulatory conflict between the s.e.c. and department of labor. it is as simple as that. mr. speaker, even the s.e.c. itself acknowledges that the cost of its regulation could ultimately be passed on to retail investors in the form of higher fees or lost access to services and products yet again unfair. it's not what americans need, it's not what they deserve. especially as our economy

remains in the throes of the weakest, slowest nonrecovery of the last 70 years. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to pass this bipartisan bill. again, a bipartisan bill that passed with half, half, of the democrat thopes financial service committees choosing to support this commonsense legislation. h.r. 2374 will help struggling american families get the financial assistance they want and deserve. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the chair recognizes the entlelady from california. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: i strongly oppose h.r. 2374, the bill inappropriately entitled retail investor protection act. 4 the opposite, h.r. 23 hinders the labor department and the securities and exchange commission from protecting the average retail investor when

they save for retirement. for the last two years, the labor department has been updating an outdated rule regarding the fiduciary responsibility owed to employee benefit plans under the employee retirement income security act of 1974. erisa. for individual retirement accounts, i.r.a.'s, under the tax code. today retirees are more likely to rely on 401k's and i.r.a.'s and are less likely to have defined benefit plans from their employers. at the same time, the natural products have become increasingly complex. because the rules governing the rights of investors and the responsibilities of advisors are more than 35 years old, d.o.l. is attempting to modernize these rules and -- in order to reflect the changing nature of the retirement marketplace. given these realities it is necessary for the department to

make sure that the professionals offering retirement advice have a duty to put their clients' interests first before their own or at very least tell their customers that they may be conflicting. at the same time the s.e.c. is considering moving forward on a rule making that would impose a uniform fiduciary standard of conduct for broker dealers and investment advisors, consistent with the dodd-frank act. this would ensure that whatever the business model, if an individual is providing personalized investment advice out securities to a retail customer, they would have a duty to put that customer's interests before their own. this is particularly important as many retail customers are unaware of the differences in the standards of care that various professionals owe them.

collecting the necessary data and responding to stakeholder concerns about preserving access to investment advice, particularly for individuals with small accounts. given these facts, h.r. 2374 is the wrong approach. this legislation makes it significantly more difficult for both the s.e.c. and the department to move forward. requiring rovision the s.e.c. to do a new study, another study documenting that investors are being systemically harmed or disadvantaged under the existing standard creates a high hurdle for the commission to overcome. the purpose of this provision is to impose further road blocks. before the commission can take any action, providing another avenue for industry to sue the s.e.c. secondly, h.r. 2374 would prohibit the labor department from modernizing thify dishure

duty standard -- the fiduciary duty standard and the tax code until the s.e.c. issued their rule. this provision would represent a historic be a row gation of the department's -- abrogation of the department's unique authority and despite whatever pressing need for an updated rule. nally, h.r. 2374 seems premised on the faulty notion that the department and the s.e.c. are not coordinating, when in fact staff have regular ongoing s.e.c., d.o.l. staff meetings. in addition leadership meetings, as well as a memorandum of understanding to share information on retirement and investment matters. on behalf of millions of consumers, retirees and investors, several organizations , including the aarp, the consumer federation of america, the affle croix and americans

for financial -- afl-cio and americans for financial reform all oppose this legislation. a coalition of financial planning professionals wrote that h.r. 2374 is a backdoor attempt to undermine investor protection provisions in dodd-frank. in addition, s.e.c. chair wright said in a letter to the committee that h.r. 2374 would make it difficult for the commission to adopt such a rule. simply put, h.r. 2374 just goes too far. the bill holds the labor department hostage while throwing out road blocks for the s.e.c. mr. chairman, for these reasons i urge a no vote on this bill and i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady reserve her time? the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, it's my pleasure now to yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the committee on education and work force, the

gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, it's been four years since the recession ended, yet economic growth is still anemic, job creation remains sluggish and wages are flat. with each passing day, countless americans feel they're falling further behind and in these difficult times, working families shouldn't need to fear yet another regulatory scheme that will make it more difficult to rebuild their retirement savings. that is why i support the retail investor protection act, legislation that will force the department of labor to hit the brakes on sweeping changes to the way workers save for retirement. for many americans, investing in a retirement plan can be confusing and frankly intimidating. workers want to know their hard-earned dollars are managed wisely and in a way that can lead to financial security in their retirement years. investment professionals provide a crucial service to those who want to plan for their retirement, yet lack the time and expertise to manage an

investment portfolio. all investment advisors should be well trained, adhere to the highest ethical standards and promote the best interests of their clients. rules governing the actions of particular investment advisors, also known as fiduciaries, have helped provide workers with certainty for decades. however, since 2010 the labor department has tried to expand the definition and duties of a fiduciary and in the process diminished that certainly -- certainty. while we look for ways to modernize the regulations, the department's recent proposal threatens to drive up cost, restrict investment opportunities and harm efforts to educate workers about responsible retirement planning. despite bipartisan concerns, department officials are still pursuing this flawed approach behind closed doors. h.r. 2374 will force the department of labor to abandon this misguided effort and help ensure any future attempt to redefine fiduciary promotes the retirement security of america's workers. i want to thank representative wagner, chairman hensarling and

members of the house financial services committee for their strong bipartisan leadership on this important issue. i urge my colleagues to support the retail investor protection act and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady from california. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member of the financial services committee, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is yielding time and for how much time? ms. waters: three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: for three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: i thank the gentleman and i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 2374, the so-called retail investor protection act. despite its innocuous-sounding title, the intent of this bill is not to protect investors but to protect an outdated system that weakens the average american's retirement savings protections. when americans sit down across the table from a financial

advisor, and entrust their retirement nest egg, they expect the advice they receive to be the best financial advice for them. that's why when congress created the employee retirement security act in 1974 it did so with the express purpose of protecting employees and the independents through robust disclosure requirements and if i doucheary standards of care. but the quality of advice they receive is often dependent on whether their advisor is an investment advisor or a broker dealer. a distinction which is really a reflection of an accident of chance that retail investors typically are not aware of and do not fully understand. moreover, as employers have come o back away from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans like 401-k's. average workers more often are on their own to weigh advice received directly from their financial advisor about how best

to invest their retirement. the result of the retirement savings system in which many workers often are unaware that they are turning over their savings to advisors who may have no legal requirement whatsoever to act in the worker's best interest. this bill before us today will make it harder for the department of labor and the securities and exchange commission to protect workers' retirement savings, at a time when expanding and strengthening those retirement savings and protections has never been more important. the average social security beneficiary receives about $1,200 per month. just under $15,000 per year. representing just 41% of required preretirement income. with the cost of services for retiree, such as health care, food and other essentials, continuing to go up, it is more important than ever that americans have robust retirement savings to supplement the modest benefit that social security now guarantees. unfortunately this bill before the house today makes -- takes

us in the opposite direction. in order to protect the status quo. that's why aarp opposes this bill, that's why the afl-cio opposes this bill, that's why the consumer federation for financial reform opposes this bill, and that's why i will vote no on this bill and i urge my colleagues to do the same. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield six minutes to the sponsor of the legislation, an outstanding freshman member of our committee, who has led on this issue. i yield since minutes to mrs. wagner of missouri. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for six mix. mrs. wagner: mr. speaker, i want to first thank chairman hensarling and chairman garrett for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. i also want to thank my financial services committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work and support of this bill. mr. chairman, in recent weeks we've been caught up in a fierce

debate over the emperiled balance sheet of our nation. it goes without saying that for a nation that is $17 trillion in debt, getting our federal balance sheet under control remains of extreme importance for future generations of americans. but we must also keep in mind these days that it's not just the federal balance sheet that is upside down. indeed, the household balance sheet of american families is under some of the greatest stress week of seen in decades. median household income has declined by $2,400 since the previous recession ended in june of 2009. millions of americans remain out of work and an alarming number of our fellow citizens have flat-out given up on their search to find a job. and recent studies have thousand that an alarming percentage of americans do not have adequate savings set aside for their retirement. the fact is that many families in missouri and all across the

country are struggling just to make it to the 15th and the 30th of every month. let alone finding the ability to put something away for retirement or for a rainy day. regrettably, despite all of these economic challenges, two federal agencies are on a path towards making it even harder for our fellow citizens to save and invest money for the future. at issue are attempts by the department of labor and the s.e.c. to increase the liability of financial professionals that provide services to hardworking families all across our country. these new rules are likely to impose tremendous new burdens on main street businesses and will take choices away from hardworking families who understand better than anyone else that investments are -- what investments are in their best interest. for example, when the department of labor originally proposed the new fiduciary rules in 2010, it was pointed out by several commentators and by republicans and democrats in congress that

the likely result would not have been enhanced investor protection. rather, scores of low and moderate income americans would have suddenly found themselves unable to work with a financial professional and unable to make investments that would help them achieve financial security for their future. similar dynamics are in play with the s.e.c. without providing any evidence of investor harm, the s.e.c. is heading toward a rulemaking that could disrupt the valuable relationship that americans have with their financial professionals. perhaps most concerning, these two agencies appear to be on a collision course with one another. and could end up issuing to very different and conflicting rules. recently the s.e.c. issued a 72-page request for information to support a rulemaking. but nowhere, nowhere in this request did the s.e.c. mention

the department of labor's fiduciary project or its effect on the s.e.c.'s work. so despite the claims we've heard from both agencies, it doesn't appear that there is much coordination going on at all. this suggests that we are headsing toward a situation where rules come into conflict with one another, creating a great amount of confusion and cost for businesses and retail investors. that brings us to h.r. 2374, the retail investor protection act, which passed the house financial services committee in june by a bipartisan vote of 44-13. to those who are just tuning in to this debate, it may help to understand exactly who it is we're talking about when we use the term retail investor. retail investor could describe two young working parents that are trying to figure out ways to save for that first home. it could describe a single mother who has scraped together $1,000 to open up an i.r.a. or

an educational account for her child. or it could describe a new dad looking to set up an insurance policy for his family. americans that will be hurt the most by overbearing and misguided rules that prohibit them from making investments that they both want and desperately need. so, the underlying legislation is quite simple. first, it requires the department of labor wait for the s.e.c. to act before issuing new fiduciary rules. i would note that a recent letter from 10 democratic senators in the office of management and budget made this very same request. second, the legislation requires that the s.e.c. identify whether investors are being harmed or disadvantaged under current regulations. in other words, the s.e.c. would have to identify a problem it is rying to address. the s.e.c. would vals to

determine if new rules would restrict access to products and services and show that any final rule would actually reduce any confusion investors have over standard of conduct within the industry. in short, this bill brings much-needed checks and planses to a regulatory process gone bad. we must remember what is at stake here. americans invest trillions of dollars through i.r.a.'s, educational accounts, and other investment vehicles. the retail investor protection act would require that federal agencies act in the best interest of all investors and would go a long way toward preserving access to financial services for americans of all income levels. i thank my colleagues again for their support and i urge passage of this bill, 2374. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california.

ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, also co-chair of the progressive caucus a member of the financial services committee and democratic whip. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. ellison: i want to thank ranking member councilwoman waters for the time and thank the chairman and the speaker today. we have a crisis in our country and the crisis has to do with retirement this retirement crisis is huge. we literally have about $6.6 trillion between what people have for retirement and what they need for retirement. so the labor department is doing what makes sense. making sure that when a person representing themselves as a financial advisor is going to a person who wants to retire, roll over a 401k or whatever is that they are getting good advice. advice good for them, the best advice for them. and the advisor is making money

off the products they're pushing that they would not be all right. but you know what the labor department is not even done with the rule. they're still writing it. but before they ever do, this shoddy piece of legislation is going to try to interrupt that process. this bad piece of legislation is going to interrupt the department of labor as they are pulling together a rule to protect retirees. we have a record amount of more than $10 trillion invested in retirement accounts and yet median retirement account balances are $45,000. that's a huge gap. some of the reason, part of the reason, is this amount of -- part of the reason this amount is so low is due to high fees and hidden commissions. an annual fee of 1% could lower the amount of an account by 21% over 30 years. i'm grateful for their

department of labor for their efforts to come together to do a good plan. too often workers leave jobs and are contacted by people who urge them to roll over their 401k into an i.r.a. and too these workers don't know these callers are sellers who can put them in an account with high fees and hidden commissions. yet this bill would not protect the public from such ripoffs. investors lose 3%, 4%, 5% of the value of their savings without knowing about it and this bill, h.r. 2374, is harmful. it prevents the department of labor from taking steps to ensure advisors don't have conflicts of interest. why would anybody want to say yes, have all the conflicts of interest you want, as you are messing with our retirees' accounts. taking the unprecedented step to stop an agency mid process in protecting workers is bad. that's why a.i.p., the national

council la rasa and many, many more people representing americans oppose it. and so this anti-government rhetoric, all this stuff about government regulation we hear all the time, is the same rhetoric that led to the shutdown that undermined the interest of american workers. let's shut this bill down. it's not good. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. roe, a distinguished member of the -- mr. hensarling: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. roe a distinguished member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roe: i rise in support of this bill. the department of labor's efforts to redefine fiduciary standing -- standard is classic washington. it's a solution in search of a problem. they have yet to present

evidence beyond anecdotes that workers are being hurt. they have not presented a cost benefit analysis. this is not to say it must never be change wesmed want to strengthen worker retirement security and perhaps we need to modernize a standard. instead of working with congress, the department of labor has single mindedly pursued a course that would drive up the cost of retirement planning and restrict access to important investment advice. millions could be left to prepare for retirement on their own. how on earth could this be a good thing? the 2007 recession wreaked havoc on the retirement savings of american workers. we should work together on responsible solutions that workers will enjoy their retirement years with financial security and peace of mind. i'm privileged to serve as the chairman of the subcommittee on health, employment, labor and pensions. that's precisely what we're trying to do in the area of multiemployer pension reform.

the subcommittee has convened numerous bipartisan hearings to closely examine the problems plaguing the system and we held such a hearing earlier today will we all agree on every poincht if -- every point? of course not. however, we remain committed to working together to come up with real solutions to promote the best interests of american families. i hope the department of labor will reconsider its ill-conceived approach to revising federal fiduciary standards and work with congress and others to strength then retirement security of hardworking americans. until the department does what's right and changes course, i urge my colleagues to support the retail investor protection act and mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. p ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield to the gentlelady from new york who serves as ranking member on the subcommittee of capital markets and government

sponsored enterprises of the financial services committee, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the ranking member for yielding and for her hard work. i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 2374. the bill would require the securities and exchange commission to conduct yet another cost benefit analysis of a diphi doucheary duty rule, apparently in the attempt and hope of derailing a new fiduciary duty rule. the s.e.c., securities and exchange commission, has lready completed a lengthy study on whether or not to impose a fiduciary duty rule and that study included an extensive cost-benefit analysis. so my colleagues outside of trying to derail a new consumer

safeguard, what could possibly be the purpose of requiring the s.e.c. to do yet another cost enefit analysis on the exact same issue again? how about just take the first one and make two copies. the rule also prohibits the labor department from even proposing a rule until 60 days after the s.e.c. finalizes its final rule. and what is the harm, my colleagues, in allowing an agency, in this case, the labor department, release a proposed rule for public discussion, for public input? since when has congress been fraid of a debate? and if my colleagues believe that the proposed rule gets it

wrong, then they have every opportunity to say so. as does the public. as does businesses. and that's exactly what the public comment period is for. and that's what happened the last time the labor department proposed a fiduciary rule. there were questions raised, they have recalled it to reconsider. and they are withdrawing that proposal and working on a new one. and if the s.e.c. has a better idea for a fiduciary duty rule, then let's debate that one and have that released. but preventing an agency from even putting out a regulatory proposal for public debate is flat out dead wrong. this bill would delay and possibly derail important rule making at the securities and exchange commission -- a at the

securities exchange department and the labor department to protect retirement security and investor rights. this is an apparent transplarnte -- transparent attempt to slow down the rule making process and possibly derail the rule making process for protections for consumers. for these reasons, i urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, the chairman of the financial services subcommittee on capital markets and g.s.e.'s. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the speaker and i thank the chairman for advancing this bill to the floor. i also congratulate the sponsor of the bill, ms. wagner, for leading forward a piece of legislation that has at its heart to work in a bipartisan manner to protect america's investors. big and small, senior citizens, regular people across this country, who are concerned

about their investment, concerned about what they pay for their advice and for their transactions, so i commend both of them for moving this legislation along. the other side of the aisle likes to get engaged with name calling, shoddy, bad, ripoff, stuff like that, and throw out numbers which i guess are fulled out of the air, if they say 1% for this, how much is it over 30 years? if it's a commission of x, i don't know how much that is over 40 years. i always wonder when i hear comments from the other side of the aisle do, they actually sit and read the bill or do they just pull these numbers out of the hat? but what i did hear, one of their comments which goes to the point of trying to help investors is, how do we help americans? and how do we do it in a bipartisan manner? you know, this was one of the most bipartisan bills we have ever had coming out of our committee. over half of the democrats on the committee said they are going to stand with americans, stand with investors and let me

just share with you some of those. mr. sherman voted yes. ms. moore said yes, mr. perlmutter said yes. mr. himes said yes. mr. peters said yes. mr. carney, mr. foster, mr. kildee, mr. delaney, mrs. beatty, and mr. heck to name just a few who joined with republicans to work in a borne manner to stand with americans, stand with american investors, realizing at the end of the day part of the problem in washington is too many agencies that are not communicating with each other. lack of communication is some of the problems we have seen in this country in the last few weeks and months. all we're suggesting is that the various agency the s.e.c. and department of labor, actually coordinate, work together, and work for the benefit of investors. how will they do that? the s.e.c., who is principally charged with the responsibility of looking at the areas of broker dealers and investment advisors and you know there's a

difference on how they're treated right now and there's a reason for that, and they've been treated differently for three, four, five, eight decades or so. the s.e.c. will be looking at this. as the gentlelady from -- she's gone right now, but the gentlelady from new york indicated, there's a study right now, they're getting comments already for their study. we're saying let's make sure we hear all the information, collect all the data and before we go forward, let's have communication between these two agencies. let the s.e.c. take the first step here. nothing in here prevents them from taking any final actions or final steps. nothing in this bill prevents the investor from being protected as these various agencies seat sees fit. all we're asking for is the s.e.c., the agency principally charged with this, take the first action, make sure they have the data, and work in harmony with the department of labor, and we will be helping noviceor -- investors in a completely bipartisan manner. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from california. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, congressman miller, who is the ranking member on the committee of education an labor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. >> i mr. miller: i thank the gentlelady for yielding for her work on this legislation and for yielding me tee the time. this bill is very bad news for working families. it protects a loophole in the law that allows conflicted brokers and advisors to rip off those trying to save for retirement. the 2008 financial crisis wiped out trillions of dollars in retirement accounts. working families need to rebuild those nest eggs and need better protections for their savings mb the s.e.c. and labor department moved to provide these protections by

closing a harmful loophole but this bill would scuttle those efforts. here's what's at stake. millions of americans are putting a money aside every day in their 401k's and i.r.a. tose to save for retirement. some of those advisors and brokers have conflicts of interest, often undisclosed conflicts of interest. the brokers know about their conflicts of interest, the brokerage houses know about the conflicts of interest, but the person who is handing over their hard-earned retirement funds doesn't know about the conflicts of interest. the workers think they can trust this investment advise but they don't know their advisor may get paid for more in fact steering them, in actual cases, steering them into high-cost funds with the worst performing of the family funds. very good for the family of funds, very bad for that who's now worker

handing over their retirement nest egg. that product might have higher fees than other products, it might underperform compared to other products. in other words, their product is not in the worker's best interest. but it certainly is in the broker's best interest. the s.e.c. and the labor department are trying to close this loophole that allows this ripoff to continue to happen. and is indeed a ripoff of ordinary americans. i know my friend from new jersey doesn't like the term ripoff, that's what's happening to these hardworking american families. multiple studies, not conjecture, multiple studies have found these conflict of interests have caused these retirees, these workers, very real money. in 2009 the g.a.o. found that when a penchant consultant has a conflict of interest, their retirement plan underperforms by 130 basis points. if a broker recommends funds at a similar rate of underperformance, a 40-year-old worker who rolls over his balance into an i.r.a. will see his retirement savings cut by 1/3 over 30 years.

if he normally earns 6% returns, he would now only be making 4.7% returns. the bottom line is, he's $35,000 poorer by the time he reaches 70. thank you for that conflicted advice. and this year researchers found that the funds recommended by a conflict of brokers and 401 k plans underperform the average by 3.6%. that translates into workers losing $1 billion every month from the retirement funds. because of this conflicted interest. as a result, consumers are getting bad advice and putting their retirement savings at stake. where do those figures come from? they came from the founders of van guard fund. who worked out the difference between these funds, conflicted funds and other funds. that's why the dodd-frank law directs the s.e.c. to transition brokers to a fiduciary standard. and separately the department of labor's trying to align the protections as well. brokers need to either act solely in the best interest of investors or otherwise disclose

that they work -- who they work for and how they are paid. but some on wall street have cried out, claiming that they will not be able to offer investment advice, especially to working people. if they can't offer con flicted advice. they can't tell you how to invest your money unless they can offer uconn flicked advice where they're getting paid more to offer you a substandard product with knowledge of that and the higher fees they somehow can't make money. well, listen, let's remember that 75% of the brokers can't beat the s&p 500. it's on automatic pilot. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. miller: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. is that what they're really saying? is that what american workers want to know? if i don't give you money that you can keep secret, conflicts of interest that you have with the investment of my money, that i have to give you my money anyway? if i'm looking for this investment? that's absolutely wrong. the american worker deserves better than that. these people work hard to make a decision, to try to save, to add

to their 401-k's. you want to talk about oh, we should educate them about the value of 401-k, about the value of an i.r.a. you can educate them until the cow comes home but if they know someone's stealing their money because they can conceal a conflict of interest, all that education won't make a damn bit of difference because the fact of the matter is, they worked too hard to hand over their money to those conflicted advisors. and that's what this bill is about. either -- this bill would continue those conflicts, make every effort to delay and stop this rulemaking, or we change the law, we go forward and we protect working families, we protect the retiree and we make sure that the financial marketplace is free of these conflicts of interest. again, i thank the gentleman for -- the gentlewoman for all her effort on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, the chairman of the financial services subcommittee on

oversight and investigations, mr. mchenry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to thank the committee chairman as well. mr. hensarling for recognizing me and my colleague, ann wagner from missouri, for putting together this very wise bill. i would say to my democrat colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they're speaking out with loud voices, that the only ripoff here is when -- as retail investors and the american people have two different government agencies writing rules, they're not coordinating with each other and they're not talking to one another, they're not writing rules that work together. in fact, you could be a retail investor and be complying with the department of labor's rules, but running counter to the securities and exchange commission rules, if this coordination is not done as required by this legislation. so the retail investor protection act is just that. it protects retail investors. it reconciles uncoordinated efforts between the securities and exchange commission and the u.s. department of labor and it

says that they have to work together and also use a cost-benefit analysis when they're writing these rules. i think that's a very wise thing. and in fact, the court system has agreed, it's a wise thing. 44 members of the house financial services committee thought it was a wise thing. while only 13 opposed passing this out. and also we have 10 democrat united states senators that have written to the office of management and budget, making an entical request as this bill to the s.e.c., that the s.e.c. act first in writing these rules before they come together. so today it's not only a bipartisan vote, but it's also bicameral. both the house and the senate. and i would ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill coming out of financial services , to make sure that our government agencies actually coordinate when they write rules and let's actually protect retail investors and do that first. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i will yield to the gentleman from virginia, who is on the judiciary committee and who is the ranking member on the subcommittee on terrorism, homeland security and investigations on that committee of the judiciary, mr. bobby scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is yielding how much time? ms. waters: three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: three minutes to the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you. and i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 2374, the so-called retail investor protection act. h.r. 2374 delays the department of labor's rulemaking process that would protect investors from unscrupulous investment scams. now, in past generations, pension plans -- there was a defined benefit. you look at the numbers of -- the number of years, your last salary and the mull approximately and you could

calculate what your pension would be. but more and more we're seeing the fund contribution plans where the employer just makes a contribution and the final benefit would be whatever happens to the money over the years, with the investment advice that you're given. the trend has had a profound impact on thality mate -- ultimate retirement benefits and security. two people investing the same amount, for example, $100 a month over 30 years, could see very different retirement savings over that same period of time based on what investments they chose. those investment choices could be the difference between a savings at the end of $100,000 or as much as $500,000, depending on which strategies were used. now, most employees are not sophisticated investors and therefore they need advice. on what investment strategies should be used. how much should be in stocks, how much in bonleds, how much in mutual funds, and which mutual funds?

and they seek advice. the rule that the department of labor has introduced in 2010 and will most likely reintroduce this fall simply requires that an investment advicer provides -- advisor provides advice, provide that advice with a fiduciary responsibility to the investor. consistent therefore with the best interests of the investor, not what would ultimately be most profitable to the advisor. that is he has a duty to give primary consideration to the investor, not to his own profit. there are a lot of different products, a lot of mutual funds with extremely high fees, where comparable funds, even better funds, have lower fees. often the advisor will push products -- products that are totally inappropriate for the investor, thus compromising the investor's retirement security in the long run but maximizing the profits for the advisor. the bill we consider today will allow investments to be sold

which are laden with conflicts of interest, that would immunize investors who give self-serving, inscrupulous advice from any liability. there's apparently a belief that investment advice that is self-serving and full of conflicts of interest is better than no investment advice at all. that's absolutely absurd. there's nothing wrong with those selling investment products to be required to give primary consideration to the investors they're purporting to advise. this bill would delay the rulemaking that would take the necessary steps to protect employees and retirees that are currently being taken advantage of. can i have 15 more seconds? ms. waters: yes. i yield to the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. scott: the bill that we consider today would delay the rulemaking that would take the necessary steps to protect employees and retirees that are currently being taken advantage of by investment advisors, giving this inscrupulous advice.

mr. speaker, millions of americans look to financial advisors for advice. there's nothing wrong with requiring them to have a fiduciary responsibility to those that they're advising. it's about time that we make sure the investor are getting the good advice that they deserve and therefore we should defeat this bill. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, the vice chairman of the financial services subcommittee on capital markets and g.s.e.'s. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognizes -- is recognized -- is recognized for two minutes. mr. hurt: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to the chairman of this committee and the sponsor for your leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the retail and investor protection act. fifth district virginians and americans across the country are working hard to save for their futures. whether it be for retirements or college tuition for tharnechir -- for their children. unfortunately these hardworking americans are being faced with the prospect of increased cost and future choices for the

financial products that they currently rely on for their investments. currently the department of labor and the securities and exchange commission have indicated they will move forward with rule makes to make changes to the fiduciary standards that would decrease the availability of financial advice for retail investors and increase the costs of financial advice for retail investors. we must protect the ability of these americans to choose the financial professional who best meets their investment needs and this bill is an important step in that direction. retail investor protection act ensures that retail investors, including many american families, are not affected by unnecessary regulations put in place without sufficient economic analysis or regulatory coordination. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill so that washington does not stand in the way of americans' ability to seek the best financial advise for their needs. i thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i yield

to the gentleman from new jersey who is an expert on retirement savings, he's the ranking member on pensions of the subcommittee of ed and labor. he's also the co-chair of steering and policy committee, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: inquire as to how much time the gentlelady sbeppeds to yield. ms. waters: three minutes. i'm sorry. three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i thank my very good friend for yielding. so you're in the lunch room at work and this guy comes in from the investment house and he shows 18 slides about the red fund. smiling people who are on fishing trips and european vacations, really happy people. and he shows one slide about the blue fund at the very end. and finishes his presentation. the red fund looks pretty good.

what he doesn't tell you is that he gets 2.5% of every $1 you put a half of d fund but 1% for every $1 you put in the blue fund. he neglects to mention that. so people rush and put their money in the red fund. now, should his interests be aligned with you or should he his interesting be aligned with his own -- interests be aligned with his own interest? that's the question that's raised by this bill. the department of labor is writing a rule that for the first time would say that that person standing in front of new that room has a fiduciary obligation to the person listening. that is to say that he has to put the interests of the listener ahead of his own financial interests. self-interest is the ma little nancy that brought the u.s. -- the ma little nancy that brought the u.s. economy to its knees five years ago. people who made transactions that benefited them and not the people they're supposed to be

representing. to permit the cancer of self-interest to invade the second most important asset people have in their lifetime, which is their pension, would be n enormous mistake. that's a mistake this department of labor rule is trying to avoid this bill is a mistake because it rolls back those efforts and protections for the american people. john vogel, the founder and patron of vanguard, has estimated that nearly 30% of people's pension funds have evaporated because of unnecessary fees. now people want to choose a high-fee plan, that's their choice. but they should make that voice only after receiving the advice that is directed to their own best interest from a competent professional. the department of labor rule promotes that result. this bill undercuts that result. for this reason we should oppose this bill. i yield back.

mr. hensarling: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. luetkemeyer, another distinguished member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank mr. hensarling for his work on this issue and my good friend and neighbor ms. wagner for her hard work on this. she is trying to propose legislation that tries to solve a problem that we have with these two agencies trying to coordinate a proposal, a regulation. which they don't seem to be willing to do or do in the right way. as usually when the bureaucracy tries to propose things, there are unintended consequences of those actions and rulings. we have here some of those intended consequences which ms. wagner and her legislation are trying to mitigate. this proposal has the potential to drive up the cost and availability of services and products for investor,

particular those with low and moderate incomes. i recently spoke to a broker-deal for the missouri who i represent, one of a handful of small brokers in a two-county radius. if the department of labor rule moves forward, he like many other small broker-dealers will have no choice because of the way the rule is written, or being proposed, but will stop offering his services to clients and many missourians will be without or have limited access to financial products and advice. this hurts not only the big investors but this hurts the small investors. as i said, you're talking about low and moderate income folks and particularly one of the most basic investments we have, the i.r.a. how basic can you get for them not to be able to allow people to utilize an i.r.a. is -- if this gos into force. it's important to take this action. i thank the gentlelady from missouri for her efforts. i urge my colleagues to support. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. mr. waters: mr. speaker, i'd like to inquire how much time we have left on this side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has five and a half minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has five minutes remaining. ms. waters: i am prepared to close, however i will reserve my time if the chairman has other members that he would like to put forth at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. mr. hensarling: we have one more speaker, then allow the gentlelady to close, and i have the right to close? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. hensarling: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. speaker. i have been watching this debate, it strikes me with all the financial terms and some of the heated rhetoric and it has been heated, i never thought

i'd see the day where enlightened self-interest was called a cancer in this nation, i wonder what alexis de tocqueville would think about that but it seems we've lost sight of what we're talking about. we're talking about a bill, what the bill does, and why. let's talk first about why we're here. we have a situation where dodd-frank has given authority to the s.e.c. to make some rules. the department of labor also thinks it has the authority to make rules in the same area. i hope we can all agree that there's a potential for conflict there we know what it is, we've seen it 100 times before. we don't want the s.e.c. to come out and say you can't do x and have the department of labor come out the next week and say, but you have to do x. hundreds of examples like that in the federal government. this bill is trying to address that. what does the bill do? it asks the two agencies to work together. someone please tell me how that

is a bad thing and a cancer, of all things, on this nation. it requires the two agencies to try to figure out if there is a problem, to ask them to identify a problem before they come up with a solution. again, i think this makes a good bit of sense. the questions that we require them to ask in this bill, pretty simple. are investors being systematically harmed? would new rules limit people's access to investment advice? what are the costs and benefits of the rule? how is this controversial? and i would suggest to you, mr. speaker, that it's not. and that's the reason it came out of committee on a bipartisan basis. the reason it's going to pass today on a bipartisan basis and the reason that it has the bipartisan basis that it does in the senate. too often i think we get sidetracked coming in here and giving big speeches. perhaps sometimes i'm as guilty of that is a anyone else.

but today we've lost sight of why we're here and i hope we come together this afternoon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. speaker and members h.r. 2374 is yet another attempt by republicans to prevent our regulators from doing their job. this time, protecting the average retail investor when they try to save for retirement. under this bill, the securities and exchange commission would have to navigate new obstacles to harr monoize a standard of care broker-dealers and investment advisors have when providing investment advice. the department of labor would have to wait, possibly forever, to update its rules protecting 401k and i.r.a. plan participants. h.r. 2374's restrictions put additional work in the way, stopping boekers from self-dealing when selling investment products to main street. several studies have

demonstrated that americans do not understand that a broker does not necessarily have the investor's best interests when pushing financial products. the line between advisors and brokers has blurred over the last few decades and this bill makes it harder to bring clarify for investments. mr. speaker, and members, this administration has taken a strong stand against this bill. let me read to you from the letter that they have sent to us and i'd like to offer this for the record. the administration strongly opposes passage of h.r. 2374 because it would derail important rule making under way at the securities and exchange commission and the department of labor that are critical to protecting americans' hard-earned savings and preserving their retirement security. they further say that h.r. 2374 prohibits labor from issuing a rule to protect investors until the s.e.c. engages in and

completes further study of the effect of rule making on retail investors. of course there's a lot said here but i think this says it all. the bill would hinder efforts to protect consumers from conflicts of interest among brokers, dealers, financial advisors and others whose incentives may be misaligned with investors, potentially leading to deceptive and abusive practices. the administration is committed to ensuring that american workers and retirees are able to receive advice about how to invest their money in safe, secure, and transparent financial products that is free from harmful conflicts of interest. mr. speaker and members, i would just bring this to your attention. the department of labor is working to protect investors. my friends on the opposite side

of the aisle are working to protect dealer-brokers who may not have the best interests of these small individuals who want to invest, who want to earn money for retirement, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are putting all of this energy out to protect them, no matter they may be in a conflict of interest with those who are simply trying to save for retirement. i have watched as we have been through this subprime meltdown in this country, people lose money in their 401k's. i have watched people lose money in their i.r.a.'s. i have watched single women in their 60's, losing their entire investment retirement savings, who can't go back to work because they are too old. they can't find a job. whose side are we on? are we on the side of broker-dealers who will have no

fiduciary responsibility, who can tell you any old thing, direct you any old place, they get higher commissions, and the people lose money? whose side are we on? why are we here in the congress of the united states of america, voted on by our constituents to come here to advocate for their best interests. the gentlelady from missouri talked about what a hard time families are having. she's right. families are having a hard time. and i want to tell you, families are having a hard time even when my friends on the opposite side of the aisle would deny them food stamps when they lose their jobs. even when they stand here in the congress of the united states and support sequestration that's denied that family the ability to send their child to head start. they don't have money for fancy early childhood education. head start is all they have. but they're losing the ability to do that because my friends

on the on site side -- opposite stide of the aisle are cutting every agency my friends on the on sid side of the aisle can't care about families in the way they say they do because they shut down this government and they cause families to lose money to stay at home, to not know when they were going to get paid or how to pay their bills and not only did they harm these families, they harmed many of our agencies that are trying to help the families. i could go on and on and on. but let me first -- suffice to say that consumer protection is advocated by some organizations we are all familiar with. aarp. aauw. afl-cio. ax mee. -- acsme. the association -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. waters: these are he the people who protect the children. i will submit this for the record and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from texas has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i must admit in the time i served as a member of congress, i have noticed the more shrill the debate, the less defensible the position. as i've listened closely to what appears to be a very shrill debate, it certainly buttresses that position. i hear my friends talk about us on the other side of the aisle, i've heard the phrase my friends on the other side of the aisle, consistently. but i would say perhaps the debate has to be between my friends on that side of the aisle, since the ranking member well knows that half -- half -- of her caucus on the financial services committee supported this bill by the gentlelady of missouri. and as was pointed out earlier, it is not only bipartisan, it is also bicameral. and so i'm sitting here, mr. speaker, with a letter signed

no fewer than 10 -- 10 -- democrat senators, imploring that the very same provisions enforced. er bill be john tess tore, mark warner, kay hagen, the list goes on and on. i would say to my friends on that side of the aisle, perhaps they ought to finish the debate amongst themselves before they carry it on over here. then again, we all know that people are entitled to their own opinions. they are not entitled to their own facts. there have been a number of misstatements of facts from my friends on that side of the aisle. particularly that broker-dealers have no standards whatsoever in disclosing conflicts of interest. that is not true. within the anti-fraud provisions, sections 9, 10, it ions 15-c-1 and 2,

prohibits misleading facts and indeed broker-dealers must fully disclose any conflicts of interest. yet another huge section of debate that was totally misleading and false by friends on that side of the aisle. and i must admit it's a disappoint degree bait but it is in some respects illuminating. to see the cynical position of those who simply believe that everyone appears to be a crook unless you're a government worker. the phrase "cancer of self-interest" is working mothers have a self-interest to invest in their children's education, you know, as a guy -- is a guy at the pepsi bottling plant in mesquite that i represent is trying to invest to buy a home and put a roof over his family's head, that's the cancer of self-interest? all we're trying to do here is

preserve investment advice and investment opportunities for working americans and i would encourage all members, all members of this body to vote for the wagner bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate on the bill has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. miller: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. george miller of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 39 1, the gentleman from california, mr. miller, and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i thank the chair and i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. miller: mr. chairman and members of the committee, the amendment that i'm offering along with mr. conyers is the way h.r. 2374 should have been drafted. instead of short circuiting the

regulatory process on behalf of wall street profits, this represents an appropriate and balanced way forward to advise the department of labor in their current rulemaking on investment advice. first congress should not be in the business of shutting down any and all efforts by the department of labor to make rules for fiduciaries. the fiduciary rule is the corner stone of pension law. that when makes sure you hand your money over to someone else to invest it for you, they're going to act in your best interests. stopping any and all regulatory action to ensure that people's retirement nest eggs are protected is irresponsible. my amendment would allow the department to proceed, at the same time it addresses concerns that have been raised with the department of labor's proposed rules. under my amendment, the congress would send message to the department of labor that we want investors protected, not wall street brokers. or advisors trying to protect their gravy train. this amendment makes it clear that the department may proceed with better protections for retirement investors in a way that provides for an unbiased

investment education, ensures underserved communities are not unduly harmed by the basic financial protections for investors, ensures that reasonable compensation for advisors and protects employee stock ownership planned appraisals. we want investment advise to be provided in consumers' best interest, not in whatever way makes advisors and brokers the most money. studies show that most americans who save think their investment advisors are working in their best interest. in fact aarp found that the overwhelming majority of consumers thought that advisors were required to act in their best interest. but in fact they're not under the current law. they're not required to disclose that they have a conflict of interest. with poll after poll, most americans are worried about their retirement, they should have the confidence that their investment advisor is at least working in their best interest and not as conflicted in the advice that he gives that person because he may receive additional fees, higher commissions because they're

recommending a product that is not in their best interest. this amendment is no a -- is a no-brainer. it supports consumers and their retirement savings. it supports unbiased education, it is a proper and balanced way forward. and i urge my colleagues to support the miller-conyers amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this amendment and yield myself so much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. i again urge opposition to this amendment, which would absolutely eviscerate this bill that we are considering now from the gentlelady from of missouri -- from the gentlelady from missouri. number one, again, we have speaker after speaker who come up and seem to ignore the fact that broker-dealers already are subject to a suitability standard, including antifraud

provisions that prohibit misstatements, misleading omissions of material facts, fraudulent and manipulative acts in practices in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. they have a duty of fair dealing, which include the duty to execute orders promptly, disclose certain material information, that the customer would consider important as an investor, charge prices reasonably related to the purr veiling market and fully disclose any conflict of interest. i could go on and on. the proponents of this amendment , as speakers before them seemed to ignore this set of facts. and so again it's interesting to how the american people are demanding that their congress work on a bipartisan basis. so out of our committee, the financial services committee, we

have gone above and beyond the call of duty and now we have a bill that has been supported by half, half of the democratic members of the financial services committee. and i just read a letter where 0, 10 democratic u.s. senators are urging the exact same language as the wagner bill and thus oppose the miller amendment. again, mr. speaker, i would urge the proponent of the amendment to first have the debate with s own caucus and then we can have a fuller, richer debate on the floor. but what's really happening here is that all we are doing is saying to the securities and exchange commission and the department of labor is, this is an economy that's being crushed, crushed by a red tape burden, that at least justify it, make

sure that the person you claim you're going to protect, that you actually protect. and instead we quite honestly fear they will not be protected, that instead they will be harmed. that all of a sudden people have access to $7 trades won't have access to them. now, again, for the affluent, that's no big deal. but for working mothers struggling to make ends meet it is a very big deal. to be denied the opportunity to open up an i.r.a. with $2,000, no, you know, i think now congress has daned that the department of labor can institute a fiduciary standard, now you're going to need $25,000. what the heck? let's make it $50,000. so the very people that they claim they want to protect very well could be harmed by this standard. and so, you know, we understand the talk, but where's the proof?

where's the proof? because what's going to happen if this fiduciary standard is posed, all of a sudden investment advice that work americans count on is either going to disappear or become far more expensive. so again, maybe it helps the trial lawyers, maybe it helps the labor union bosses, but it doesn't help the working mothers, it doesn't help the struggling fathers, it doesn't help low and moderate income people struggling in this economy where tens of millions remain underemployed and unemployed under this administration's economic policies. and so i urge that we reject this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield myself 15 seconds. i just say it's an interesting concept that the only way that the investment community can continue to survive and offer advice is if they can have the right to have conflicted advice be protected by the law.

as opposed to representing the person that they're taking the money from to invest. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, a co-author of the amendment, mr. conyers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. conyers: i want to thank george miller for the work that he has done, along with the ranking member of the finance committee. ladies and gentlemen, the miller-conyers amendment simply encourages the department of labor to issue a rule that requires investment advisors to provide advice in a fiduciary capacity and protect access to investment education, ensure reasonable compensation to advisors and ensure the availability of esop appraisals. the department of labor, and this is what we're seeking so

badly, and this is the comment that has been made about the inaccurate drafting of the bill, the department of labor should issue a proposed rule that seeks to protect workers, provide access to investment education and ensure that advisors are reasonably paid. under current rules, investment advisors may hold themselves out as acting in workers' best interests, even though they are not. i repeat, under current rules, investment advisors may hold themselves out as acting in workers' best interests even though they are not. workers in these types of plans often are required to choose between dozens of investment choices and need the advice on

their investment options from people who do not have secret conflicts. over 70 million workers and retirees depend upon 401-k retirement plans and i.r.a.'s for their retirement savings. if there is any hope for this measure at all, h.r. 2374, it would have to have this amendment on it. and i plead with those who enthusiastically support this measure to please support this amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm now pleased to yield three

minutes to the gentlelady from missouri, the author of the retail investor protection act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for three minutes. mrs. wagner: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment. mr. chairman, the language of the amendment attempts to sound benign but its inclusion would undermine a key tenant of the legislation, which is a requirement that the department of labor wait for the s.e.c. to finish any rulemaking in this area. it has been noted time and time again by chairman hensarling and others that 10 democrat senators recently sent a letter to the office of management and budget requesting that labor wait on the s.e.c.. so there seems to be bipartisan, as as we've stated before, bicameral consensus to the process here. i also must say that i find some of the terms in the amendment particularly troubling. the amendment would allow the department of labor to define what constitutes a financial

services provider. a term that i believe is broad and which i'm not sure the department of labor has either the expertise or the jurisdiction to rule upon. paragraph 3 of the amendment also states that the department of labor's rules should provide or reasonable compensation within the industry. i for one do not believe that it is up to the federal government to determine what constitutes reasonable compensation. that is a determination that belongs to consumers and to investors who i believe are more than capable of determining for themselves what is reasonable. the retail investor protection act would require that federal agencies act in the best interest of all investors and would go a long way toward preserving access to financial

services for americans of all income levels. this, mr. speaker, is about access, it's about availability, it's about affordability for hardworking american families and investors. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: three. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: i stand corrected. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, my friend, the chairman from texas, asked i think a very couple very important questions about this amendment and he really points out why i support it. first, he asked, where's the proof that american pensioners have suffered because of conflicted investment advice? mr. speaker, we can all look to the general accountability office which looked at that very question a few years ago at mr.

miller's request and mine and several others and found that upwards of 27% of people's accounts evaporated because of high fees in plans in which they put their money in to find contribution counts. that's pretty significant proof. as i said earlier on the floor, they could look to the opinion of someone who's not political at all, i think, someone who is an expert in this field, jack vogel from van guard, who uses the number 30% in unnecessary fees that have gone up here. so i think the proof is ample, that many americans have rather poultry retirement accounts because of very high fees that they're paying. second, mr. speaker, the chairman talked about the suitability standard under the securities law. well, that's kind of the point. the suitability standard is not a fiduciary standard. the suitability standard assumes an arms-length transaction between people of equal or

similar competence, where it's every man or woman, indiana vester for him or herself. the pension situation is very different. this is a situation where someone is driving a bus or building houses or teaching school or working in a software company and that's what they do, they don't do investment all the time. so when they turn to someone for advice, they're assuming that that someone is on their side. that the advice that someone has given them is in their best interest, that's the very nature of a fiduciary relationship. so i think it points to support mr. miller's amendment. there's ample evidence of harm that's been done to america's investors. and secondly, the suitability standard is wholly insufficient to protect the interests of those investors. for those reasons i urge a yes vote on this amendment and a no vote on the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. mchenry: --

mr. hensarling: how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has four minutes remaining. and the gentleman from california has 1 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. hensarling: in that case i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: let's move this bipartisan piece of amendment in the bill, is what you're trying to do is require that investment advisors, that they would have to have, you're saying, a fiduciary duty going forward, that's what you're trying to do to add to this bill? i heard you say that and i heard mr. miller say that. that was my question to you. you said it once. mr. miller said it twice. i made note of it each time. that's my question. that's what you basically want us to do. you want us to make it the law that an investment advisor would have to have a fiduciary

standard to do in the best interest, if you will. i yield to the gentleman. mr. miller: i think the law should reflect that, absolutely. mr. garrett: ok. earlier i said, i often wonder whether people who come to the floor to oppose some of our bills actually ever read the bill. now i'm going to go further than that -- mr. hensarling: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. garrett: i wonder if the people who oppose this bill actually know what the law is. the law is and has been for keck aids, if you're an investment advisor -- for decades, if you're an investment advisor, you already have a fiduciary standard with your client. that's the current law. as an investment advisor and someone going through an arisa plan has a fiduciary standard. i think what you're talking about is a broker-dealer. a broker-dealer -- exactly. that's why i asked both of you twice what you said.

what you said on the floor and what you said a moment ago is you were talking about broker dealers but you said it was investment advisors. i think it's clear -- without understanding what the law is. once again, we encourage the lady from -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are again reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from california is recognized. and has 2 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. miller: does the gentleman have additional speakers? i have no further speakers other than myself. mr. hensarling: i have no further speakers, mr. speaker. i believe i have the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: that's correct. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: so let me get this straight. you can talk about the investment advisors have been a fiduciary standard and then the broker dealers come in and close the deal and they can

provide conflicted advice and in fact conflicted products with the best interest of this retired individual who's trying to invest their funds, very clever. but this comes from an industry -- we saw the bank sell the traunch of mortgages to their best friends and customers and then immediately bidded against the success of that trauveraged to mortgages. so -- traunched to mortgages. they worked it fairly well among the big players, but now you come in with your $100,000, your $80,000 in your retirement funds and you want to make an investment and you want some advice and you want to talk to a broker. and the broker says, oh, yes, we have exactly the product for you. in fact, he's been told or she's been told to sell this product even though it's not the best performing product. it may not be a match for this couple but has the highest commission for the firm and for the broker. that's what they're do.

what you're suggesting is that should be written into the law, that conflict of interest, and you talk about all the terrible things that happen. you know, when the fiduciary said it was done in 2013, 67% said the fiduciary -- this is of the investment industry. 68% said the fiduciary standard will not reduce products of services. 79% says does not cost more to work as a fiduciary. and 65% say the fiduciary standard will not price investors out of the market. so the industry says that, but you have a whole theory how this is dooms day for the small investor. it's just not so. what you're doing is protecting the right of brokers to give you conflicted advice about the investment of your money. and they knowingly do it, and you're saying that the industry cannot continue unless they're allowed to continue to give

conflicted advice. that's why we have conflicts of interest laws, because we don't allow people to do this when they have a responsibility. we should vote for this amendment and vote against the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i'm sorry, mr. speaker. how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. again, i'm -- i think the audio system on the house floor is working quite well, and so i continue to be somewhat amazed by the number of speakers who get up and claim that broker-dealers can engage in conflicts of interest. again, i will give the citation. for the duty to disclose conflicts of interest, suitability rule 2111. i would encourage those who haven't read it to actually read it so that we could

actually have facts on the house floor. mr. speaker, what is truly radical here is the proponents of this amendment trying to upset 80 years, 80 years of settled law without any idence that is compelling to somehow believe that all of a sudden we're going to help a universe of people who most of us believe, including half of the democrats on the financial services committee believe instead will be hurt, including a number of prominent democratic senators believe they will be hurt. working moms and pops trying to provide for their family, trying to manage their nest ggs, having a new standard forced upon people they rely on. and so all of a sudden, the

investment advice is either going to get more expensive, it's going to disappear. all of a sudden i.r.a.'s for working moms at prices they can afford disappear all because we hear rhetoric about wall street. well, i don't know what this -- i don't think i've had any letters of endorsement from anybody on wall street. i mean, we can talk about something that's not applicable. perhaps we can talk about obamacare. always happy to have that discussion, once again. but again, this is a bipartisan bill. all we're trying to do is ensure if 80 years of settled law that has helped working families is about to be upset, then we better have proof it's going to help the people that it claims to help. the amendment from the gentleman from california would totally, totally eviscerate that. and so i urge opposition.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. miller. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 9, further consideration of h.r. 2374 is postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house n recess for a period less than 15 minutes.

what it does is to go on the record and show they disapprove the increase in the debt ceiling which they were unable to win a -- the showdown with president obama over in terms of extracting additional spending cuts, you know, in exchange for that. so basically this is an opportunity for them to go on the record to show their disapproval but it's not going .o go anywhere >> the committees are meeting tomorrow. how does it play into those discussions tomorrow? >> we're going into a new chapter here. we didn't have much of a pause from the last sessions of negotiating over the debt ceiling in government funding. it's just basically scene setting. i wouldn't put too much into these votes, you know, congress has done this a lot. the house has done a lot of votes to kind of go on the record and show their

disapproval of the debt ceiling increases. ut the budget con-- conference , setting that up, is basically underscores the deep riffs between the two parties going into the budget conference. the democrats and the republicans are going to want very different things, and that's why we've seen a lot of reports -- showing that the expectation is very low and that lawmakers themselves have telephone graphed that they're going to -- telegraphed that they're going to go to spending cuts, if even that's achievable at all. >> what is the time frame they're facing, a bit more on those modest cuts that they're aiming for, what can you tell us? >> they have a self-imposed time frame of december 13, but i'd confirm this with both sides. there's no hammer there. there's no enforcement mechanism so we can see them blow that so the real deadlines

are around when the government, you know, funding expires in january, january 13, and also when we approach reaching a debt ceiling again which is in february with extraordinary measures that can probably get pushed into march but i would be surprised if they actually, you know, abide by that deadline since there really is nothing hanging over them, forcing them to do it, but, yeah.

disconnect potentially between the white house and senate democrats about exactly what

they're going to ask. but since we're looking at a small package here, nothing like the grand bargain that's been talked about in the past, i would expect just kind of focus on closing of loopholes, maybe for, you know, corporations like corporate jets, things like that. just small kind of one-offs that they can put into the package to help fatten it up with some revenue as well as spending cuts. the big question is whether democrats are going to insist that there be almost an even airborne yo of spending cuts to revenue which could be a deal breaker. >> heidi covers congress for bloomberg news and you can read her reporting at bloomberg.com. we thank you for the update. >> we'll have live coverage that have house senate conference committee on c-span.org tomorrow, it and re-air it for you tomorrow night on c-span 2. we're waiting for the house to come back in for a vote on one

of two financial regulations bill. -- bills that would roll back a bit of the dodd-frank financial regulations law, a law that would demand regulations over broker-dealer conduct. we'll have live house coverage obviously had they gavel back in and until then we'll show you a portion of this afternoon's white house briefing. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here, for your white house briefing. before i take your questions, i have a couple of announcements. first i'd like to note that yesterday majority leader reid filed cloture on several qualified nominees, including patrigsa mellett who is the first of three nominees that have been nominated to serve as a judge on the d.c. circuit

court. a military spouse is a leading appellate lawyer, only one woman has argued before the supreme court more often than she has and she is supported by an impressive list of bipartisan lawyers, as well as leaders from the law enforcement and business communities. while some cynically raise the work load of the court, it is important to keep in mind that she would fill the ninth seat of this 11-member court. the last time the senate confirmed a judge to the ninth seat was in 2003 when the court had almost 50% fewer pending appeals compared to today. and yet john roberts was confirmed by voice vote. that john roberts. and as you know, the senate later confirmed the 10th and 11th seats with president bush's nominees. so we urge the senate to follow that precedent, to give this enormously qualified nominee a

confirmation vote. secondly i'd like to note that a new report released by the department of health and human services shows good news for young adults under the affordable care act. the report looked at 18 to 34-year-olds in 34 states and found that nearly half of single young adults who are uninsured may be able to get coverage for $50 or less per month in the health insurance marketplaces in 2014. and nearly seven out of 10 of single young adults who run insured may be able to pay $100 or less per month for coverage in 2014. according to the report an additional one million eligible uninsured single young adults may qualify for medicaid, in the states that have opted to expand that program next year. this is good news for young adults who have been priced out of the market in the past or could not get affordable coverage because of a pre-existing condition or

decided to risk it and then ended up tens of thousands of dollars in debt after an accident. today's report also shows that if more expanded their medicaid programs, the number of young adults who could get low-cost coverage would be even greater. specifically if all 34 states that are run by the federal government or in partnership with states were to expand medicaid, about 4.9 million uninsured single young adults would be eligible for medicaid instead of one million. so think about that. an additional 3.9 million single young adults would be eligible for medicaid, would receive that security from the coverage provided by medicaid, if those other states were to expand their programs as some have. now, because of the affordable care act, young adults can shop for quality, affordable coverage for themselves and their families and they may get a tax credit to make it even more affordable. so that is good news indeed. with that i'll take your questions.

julie. >> thanks. there's a report -- [inaudible] -- france and spain was done by intelligence services in those countries, not by the nnsa. and since the administration has -- ns -- n.s.a. and sinced at administration has said there was unspecified inaccuracies in these reports about the revelations, can you say that that was what you were talking about? >> you want to specify what the unspecified inaccuracies might be? we have important cooperative relationships with the security agencies and intelligence agencies of other nations, of allied nations. i'm not going to get into the specific alleged activities, intelligence activities, of the united states or our allies. we're obviously more broadly engaged in a review as i discussed at length yesterday of our intelligence gathering activities, mindful of the fact that because of the explosion

in our technological capacities , we need to look at and make sure that we are not just gathering intelligence because we can, but we're gathering it because we need it specifically and that review is under way at the president's direction and will be completed by the end of the year. >> one of the things that officials say of the review is the surveillance of allied heads of state. is the administration's plan to conduct this review and tell the public of its outcomes all at once or is it possible that we could learn in the coming days or a shorter time frame of the decision on that specific program ahead of speed, surveillance? >> i think generally speaking you should expect it upon conclusion of the review. we will endeavor to make public as much information as possible, mindful of the fact that these are national security programs and national security operations and intelligence matters that

lmost by definition demand that not everything be revealed about them. so i think you would expect us to have much more to say at the conclusion of the review. >> we'll take you back live now to the house floor for a series of votes. to amend the securities exchange act of 1984 to provide protections for retail customers and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from california, mr. miller. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, he noes have it. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. waters: require a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman ask for a recorded vote? ms. waters: yes. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number have arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. this is a 15-minute vote offered by the gentleman from california and will be followed by five-minute votes on a motion to recommit, if ordered, and passage of the bill, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 174, the nays are 243. the noes have it and the

amendment is not adopted. the question is on encombrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the securities exchange act to provide protection for retail customers and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the uestion is on passage. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. please clear the aisles. please remove all conversations. he house will come to order.

he house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill. mr. tierney: in its current form. the clerk: mr. tierney of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill to the committee on education and work force and the committee on financial services with instructions to report the same back to the house forth with with the following amendment, add at the end the following new section, section 4, protecting retirement savings from investment fraud. nothing in this act shall limit the authority of the secretary of labor to issue regulations to, one, prevent fraud in regard to pensions, 401k plans and other retirement savings accounts of seniors, veterans and other american workers, two, require that financial service providers when advising

employers or employees about pensions, 401k plans and other retirement savings accounts, clearly disclose any fees or other charges or, three, promote investment education and sound financial advice to employers and employees with regards to pensions, 401k plans and other retirement savings accounts. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. it will not kill the bill, will not send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker, over 70 million americans and their families depend on 401k's and similar retirement plans. veterans, seniors and middle

class workers and families in my district of massachusetts, in fact districts of all my colleagues are concerned about their pensions and 401k plans and retirement savings. a retired worker from dan versus, massachusetts, recently called my office and shared concerns. she believe she is at risk and has no other means of income. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. please take all conversations across the back aisle and out of the aisles. please, the house will come to order before the gentleman roceeds. he house will come to order. the gentleman will proceed. mr. tierney: that constituent of mine from danvers, massachusetts, believe their retirement is at risk and has no

other means of income. millions worry that they won't have adequate resouses to retire after decades of work and those who are retired like that constituent, feel that what they have won't last. retirement plans could also be subject to fraud and abuse. last year, the department of labor recovered almost $1.3 billion that was misappropriated from retirement plans and included over $800 million in prohibited transactions. the department of labor filed indictments against 117 persons. and 401k and similar plans, workers have to make investment decisions and to do so, they need access to reliable investment advice. the motion to recommit is straightforward. it simply states that the bill does not prohibit action being taken on the following three things. it does not prohibit the secretary of labor from using regulations to prevent fraud in regard to pensions, 401k plans

and other retirement savings accounts for veterans, seniors and americans and does not prohibit the secretary to require the disclosure of any fees -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. the house will come to order. he house will come to order. the gentleman will continue. mr. tierney: that motion to recommit would allow for regulations to require the disclosure of any fees to promote transparency and accountability and also promoting investment education and sound financial advice. veterans, seniors and the over 70 million investors who depend on retirement savings deserve to know that responsible actions can be taken on their behalf. i think everyone here agrees and

i ask my colleagues in support of this motion to recommit. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank you, mr. speaker. i rise again in opposition. i don't even find how this is relevant to the underlying bill of the retail investor protection act. it simply says it shouldn't prohibit something that apparently the secretary of labor already has the right to do. and given that the obama administration and i suppose if they already wanted to do what is the subject of the gentleman's motion, and he has a right to introduce legislation. but again, mr. speaker, it is irrelevant. there are lots of things that the retail investor protection act does not prohibit. it does not prohibit the

secretary of state from holding somebody accountable for the tragedy in benghazi when there were 29 failures and four dead. there is nothing in the underlying bill that prohibits the secretary of treasury from holding somebody accountable at the internal revenue service for targeting americans for exercising their first amendment rights. there's nothing in the bill that prohibits the secretary of h.h.s. for holding somebody accountable for the owe baum -- obamacare web site. half a billion still crashed. nothing that prohibits the secretary of housing and urban development for holding someone responsible at the federal housing administration from receiving their first ever taxpayer bailout being in violation of the law for five straight years for failing to adhere to their statutory

minimum capital standards. no. there are a lot of things that this bill doesn't prohibit. but let me tell you what the bill does, mr. speaker. the retail investor protection act, sponsored by the gentleman from missouri, ms. wagner, all it does is require the department of labor and securities and exchange commission to coordinate a rulemaking. i know that is a radical departure for many, but yes, they should coordinate a rulemaking and we actually require justification. if you are going to pass a rule that you claim is going to help retail investors, then actually help them. on a more fundamental level, mr. speaker, what the bill does and why we should oppose the motion to recommit, what the bill really does, it preserves, preserves that $7 online trade for the working mom trying to send a child to college. t preserves the $2,000 startup

i.r.a. for somebody who has worked 20 years at wal-mart trying to have a retirement savings. it allows low-cost access to ideas and products to people who want to manage their own investments so they can finally buy their own home. and mr. speaker, it does it all on a bipartisan basis, because half, half the democrats on the financial services committee supported this commonsense legislation. and i would urge all of them now and the entirety of the house to vote down the motion to recommit and vote in favor of retail investors and vote aye on the retail investor protection act and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

mr. tierney: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 195. the nays are 223. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. waters: recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady requests a recorded vote. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 254, the nays are 166. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i write to inform you of my resignation from the committee of oversight

and government reform. it was an honor to serve on this important committee and i remain to a government that is open and accountable. mark pocan member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. resignation is accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the clerk: house resolution 393, resolved that the following named be and is hereby elected to the standing committee of the house of representatives, one, committee on education and the work force, mr. po crmp an. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 391 and section 1002-e of the continuing appropriations act 2014, i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. young of indiana moves that the house proceed to consider house joint resolution 99. mr. young: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. ursuant to section 1002 e-2-b. the motion is not debatable. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: joint resolution relating to the disapproval of the president's exercise of authority to suspend the debt limit as submitted under section

1002-b of the continuing appropriations act 2014, on october 17, 2013. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 391 2-c. ction 1002-e the joint resolution is considered as read and the previous question is ordered without intervening motion. except one hour debate equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from indiana, mr. young, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, opponent. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to include extraneous remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: some people may be wondering why we find ourselves here today. some people may be confused as to why we are voting on a resolution to disapprove of the debt limit suspension two weeks after the fact.

and some people may be asking why i introduced this resolution of disapproval on behalf of some people who voted yes and others who voted no to give the president the authority to suspend the debt limit. the answers to these questions are much simpler than they might appear. we are here today because the united states of america carries a debt load of over $17 trillion and counting. we are voting on this resolution today because this is the procedure that was put in place by the senate when they crafted the package to end the government shutdown. many of us voted for that senate legislation largely because we didn't think it was responsible to risk defaulting on our national debt. however, i introduced this resolution and a majority of house members will vote to vote to disapprove because it's not responsible to ignore the problems created by our long-term debt. mr. speaker, despite the fact that a large number in this body voted to avoid default, it would be a gross mischaracterization

to say that we approve of a debt limit suspension, absent bold policy reforms that will set our nation on a sustainable trajectory. we must avoid negotiating these deals at the last minute and stop kicking the road down the road, skipping along from crisis to crisis. simply put, enough is enough. let's start talking across party lines how to fix our debt problems now, not the end of a deadline. we know that programs like medicare and social security are on unsustainable footing. that's why a democrat president and republican house have both offered up reforms for these programs. if we agree there's a problem, why must we wait until the next crisis to address it? we know that our tax code is outdated and it's become too larded up with narrowly tailored provisions that benefit a small

interest. our house ways and means chairman have discussed how best to achieve a fair, flatter tax code in a bipartisan way. if there is agreement here, why are we looking to self-impose fiscal deadlines in hopes of getting a deal? i could go on and on, but the point is clear. washington missed an opportunity during the most recent fiscal showdown. this resolution sends a mess ealing that ignoring our problems does not make them go away and not wait until the last minute but should reach across the aisle to face these challenges now. and it sends a message that we take these issues very seriously because they bear directly on job creation, personal income levels and our collective faith in america's enduring exceptionalism. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval. and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. just a short time ago, a number of us joined many others in paying tribute to speaker tom foley. there was a commemoration ceremony just 100 feet or so from here. there was a lot of discussion inappropriately of the need for bipartisanship. it was many reference to the role that tom foley played in that in trying to reach across the aisle. d bob michel, the former leader on the republican side, spoke so eloquently as to how there was a level of trust and how there was an effort at bipartisanship. i think what's happened in this house is that the increased

polarization has really twisted this institution and has even, to some extent, twisted the ability to have close relationships. i say this because i think this resolution is not within that pirit. . . they pulled this nation back from the brink of default. it would have magnified the economic damage, inflicted by the republican shutdown of this government. that was a bipartisan effort with leadership support from both sides of the aisle. and i can understand why those o voted no on october 16

might vote yes on this bill in order to be consistent. and while i disagree with the policy, at least their vote would be consistent. i think the vote would be consistently wrong, but it would be consistent. what's hard to understand is how anybody who voted yes on october 16 to avoid a default would now vote yes on this bill that would bring about a default. so you talk about the message. essentially the message of this bill is once again we will utilize the threat of default. that's what this bill says. when you vote for it, that's precisely what you're saying. so you're saying that serious impairment of our nation's full

faith and credit, which economists warned would plunge us back into recession, was a bad idea on wednesday, two weeks ago, but doing so is a good idea on wednesday two weeks later, we're going to vote tomorrow. that's precisely what you're saying. that is your message. so the same person who voted one way then is soon going to vote the other way. and let me just say why i think this is not within the spirit of an effort of bipartisanship that i refered to earlier and i think is so important -- referred to earlier and think is so important and the lack -- twisted -- i use that word -- the strength of this institution. just a short time ago, a few

weeks ago as the republicans took us to the brink of default, the minority leader on the senate side said, and i quote, "there's no education in the second kick of a mule." and he continued, "and we're not going to do this again in connection with the debt ceiling or with a government shutdown." that's precisely what this legislation says. precisely. it says forget about the second kick of a mule. what it says is that you would do it again in connection with the debt ceiling. so that's your message, and you would do that, you would take us to the brink of default that earlier this month the council of economic advisors estimated lost 120,000 jobs that would have been created in october,

and the private forecasters estimated slowed fourth quarter g.d.p. growth by between .2% and .6%. so i think there's no escape from the inconsistency. there's no escape from essentially saying once again there's no real effort to reach across the aisle, there's no real effort to try to instill some belief that two parties can work together. that's a bad message, and i guess a lot of you can think you can be inconsistent because it will never come up in the senate. and it won't. but that doesn't take away the

-- the fact that there is a consistency here i guess to try to cover some people's votes, to some how minimize their impact. but you know, when it comes to the default or full faith and credit of this country, there has to be something more mportant than providing us cover. we need to provide cover for the citizens of this country so that they are not vulnerable to playing with the default and the full faith and credit of this country. so you shouldn't be bringing up this resolution. it will pass, i guess, there will be enough inconsistent votes and it will go nowhere, but it sens the very, very --

sends the very, very wrong message. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. young: well, thank you, mr. speaker. i have so much respect for the long-standing service and distinguished tenure of my colleague on the other side of the aisle, and i just think there's some clarification that's required for this body and all who may be watching this evening's proceedings. so let me begin by reminding those who would review the record, i'm not sure i'd invoke republicans or democrats in my opening comments. if i did it certainly wasn't in partisan nature. instead, i extended a hand of friendship, tried to actually increase trust and offer the hope that we might work together. we might actually work together to work on the very problems that caused me to run for office for the first time in

2010. the $17 trillion national debt that i know has grown to a great degree during the service of the good gentleman on the other side of the aisle who just spoke. the unsustainible entitlement programs -- unsustainable entitlement programs that when push comes to shove and we can no longer find the resources to fund them because people haven't made bold enough adership decisions, people will be most adversely impacted. i knows those things are something my good ranking friend on the other side cares about like i do. we just haven't come together and found bipartisan solutions to these things. now, the continuing resolution vote that we passed, the package, if you will, just days ago, accomplished a few things. indicated that the president could suspend the debt ceiling but that move could be checked by votes of disapproval in the house and the senate. so this is a process that was

put into motion by that earlier bipartisan vote that occurred right here in this had body. it is true that it's been made clear over in the other chamber, the senate that the ranking member will never -- rather, the leader there will never bring this bill up in the senate. so that's been made imminently clear. the risk of default is certainly something that ought not be mentioned. we needn't spook the markets here. we will pay our bills in this country. that's something i've been proud to stand for ever since i've been in this body. the continuing resolution package also indicated that on february 8, the debt limit would be increased to reflect the borrowing that occurred during the debt limit suspension period. and then the treasury would be given the ability to create additional head room via extraordinary measures after the debt limit was reinstated on february 8, 2014.

so that's the larger context here. sounds to me very procedural. not particularly partisan. in fact, my hope was that this could be offered in the spirit of bipartisanship. this is a messaging bill. there was an illusion to -- during my good friend's comments, an illusion to a message being sent as if that somehow is a negative thing. now, most of the bills introduced in this body is introduced in part of least to send a message to the american people. we stand here and argue on behalf of the message we're trying to drive home. the message i'm trying to drive home is that these debt problems have lingered on too long and that to increase a debt limit, to suspend a debt limit is certainly not to approve of further borrowing in the future absent the sort of bold changes that frankly have not been enacted when my good friend has served many years in

congress. that's the message here. that's how i would respond. with that i would yield to my distinguished colleague, the freshman gentleman from ohio that has a lot of life experiences and is very hard wenstrup.r. mr. wenstrup: everyone in this nation pulled together to bring our country through a difficult time. it was a bipartisan effort for sure. and after the war we cut spending and we were a nation that went to work. but i ask my colleagues today as we continue to increase our spending and run up our debt, what is the limit, at what point do you finally say it's dangerous, it's dangerous for the future of america? is there a limit? we can't keep going in this direction. no one in this body wants america to default. that's not good for this country, but we need to be as serious for what we plan for

the future of this country. people say do it for the kids, do it for the kids. we do a lot for kids but we can always do more for kids. when they're grown up, what are we doing them to thing? there was a song in the 1970's, papa was a rolling stone. if it was irresponsible in the 1970's, it's irresponsible today. i spoke about the greatest legacy and the leg -- generation and the legacy they left. can you imagine the potential for opportunity in this country, for investment and for jobs if we are serious and we're on a solvent course for the united states of america? and the sooner we go in that direction, the more we could do to help americans that are in need. it's about stability, it's about certainty for the united states of america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana reserves. mr. levin: i yield myself 15

seconds. the gentleman from indiana mentioned about spooking the market, halloween is in a couple of days. essentially what this bill says is that you would be willing to spook the market if you could. that's the wrong message. now i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, a veteran of these battles and a friend of tom foley, mr. rangel. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rangel: whoever hired the republican consultant on keeping the majority should be able to get their money back. i had thought just a few weeks ago that a small group in this house had such an obsession with the affordable care act and such a dislike for the president that they were

prepared not only to close the vernment but to attack the integrity of the full faith and credit of the united states. the ridicule that this caused this congress, democrats and epublicans alike, because of this strategy to repeal a bill that already had been signed into law and approved by the united states supreme court, you would think that no one would want to go anywhere near that again. but still we have a bill before us that admittedly has already een rejected by the senate

because we want to remind the american people how totally irresponsible we have been in the past and not only causing our great country to lose $125 billion, not only the job loss, not only the pain and sacrifice that so many people had gone through because they weren't paid for the work that they were supposed to be doing but have the whole country call us irresponsible and to have people that london us money be uncertain as to our ability to pay it back -- that loaned us money to be uncertain as to our ability to pay it back, and this bill is destined to go nowhere. you know, i am a partisan democrat, but i'm more of a

patriot, and i hate to see a republican party do this to itself because i really think that our country needs another party, not just the democratic party. and i know that individuals don't care about the national republican reputation, but what has happened here is that the irresponsibility, the ridicule, the insanity of these strategies has gone beyond the republican party in the house, it has now infested part of our party and people are talking about the presidency in terms embarrassing to us as americans and especially as lawmakers. this body wasn't created for us to send messages. it was created for us to pass laws. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is

recognized. mr. young: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for four minutes. mr. stutzman: i thank my friend from indiana, mr. young, for introducing this legislation, this resolution. this is about communicating with the american people. and i'm not quite sure what to say after the last speaker, who said he was a partisan democrat, would not want to come together, both parties to work together to find a problem to the $17 trillion of debt that we have. that seems to be more of the problem in washington today, is the fact that parties don't want to work together to find a problem to the threat to our children and our grandchildren. mr. young mentioned earlier that was the reason why he ran for office was because of the $17

trillion of debt that at the time in 2010, was roughly closer to $13 trillion. we as only exceeded since have been now elected to office. and i just find it astonishing that we are americans first, not partisans, americans, who believe that we need to pass on a better future for our children and grandchildren and for future generations here in america. that's what's wrong with washington, too many partisans. i believe we have to find solutions that are going to balance the budget, like americans do across the country every day, whether it's filling up gas at the gas station or whether it's the book dues for the kids at school, health care costs, the costs of utilities. you know, people are trying to make ends meet, and instead,

washington is only making it harder, through partisanship, on the american people. both parties, republican and democrat, have driven washington $17 trillion in debt. for decades, republicans and democrats offered empty promises and cheap excuses. but our fiscal crisis cannot be ignored anymore. the national debt now exceeds our gross domestic product and saddles every american with a $53,000 share of washington's red ink. the facts are very clear. our current path is unsustainable. although medicare, medicaid and social security will grow dramatically over the next decade, recent budget debates between congress and the white house have largely ignored these key drivers of the debt. so, what's going to happen? washington is going to continue to stumble from one crisis to

the next. this is no way to run a country. madam speaker, it is irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without tackling the underlying spending problems of this crisis. hoosiers don't expect republicans and democrats to agree, but they expect us to make the difficult choices to put us on a path of fiscal responsibility. now is time to break washington's cycle of manufactured crisis and pay down our debt. i thank the gentleman for bringing this house resolution to the floor so we can discuss not only the spending problems, but what is the problem underlying the spending habits and the spending problems in washington. is it just obamacare, as the gentleman said previously? obamacare is part of the problem of our spending in washington. washington continues to look out

for washington interests and special interests rather than looking out for american interests. thank you, mr. young, for bringing this important resolution, because if there's anything that threatens our security, it is our national debt. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in 2011, admiral mullen, said this is the debatest threat to our national security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. young: i yield the gentleman another one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. stutzman: admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in 2011, after the last debt ceiling discussion in july and august of 2011, said that the debt was the greatest threat to our national security. not only is it a threat to our ability to protect our country militarily, but it is an even greater threat to our country economically. and families are feeling the

brunt day-to-day in the fact that salaries are not increasing, jobs are not being created. this is the fundamental crisis that our country is facing today and we do need to talk about it. we do need to share with one another here in congress ideas and ways that we can tackle our debt problems. thank you, mr. young, for this resolution and i proudly support it. and i'm glad to work with anyone, republican or democrat, to tackle our debt problems. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield to the distinguished member of our committee, mr. davis of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: for what period of time? mr. levin: three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. and i want to thank the ranking member for yielding. madam speaker, i hope that we've learned from three weeks ago and

not easing down the road to brinksmanship once again. every american will pay another heavy price if some of our colleagues are able to trigger again another shutdown of the government. i agree with president obama. the full faith and credit of our country is not negotiable. and if there are colleagues who are thinking about it, i would urge you, don't do it. don't create higher mortgage costs. don't cause investors to lose on their retirement plans. don't cause doctors and hospitals to wonder whether or not they're going to be paid for treating medicare and medicaid

patients. don't cause student loans to go up. don't create anxiety for more than 10 million seniors, who will be wondering whether or not they are going to get their social security check. don't create concern among veterans who will be wondering whether or not they're going to get their disability benefit checks. and so anybody that might be thinking about it, i would urge you not to do it. don't attempt to hold the debt ceiling hostage. but i would say as was said in the book of isaiah, come and let us reen together, because -- reason together, because if we don't, then the whole country will suffer. come and let us find the way to work in a way that our problems

can be dealt with. i believe that we can do it. it's been done before. and i think -- thank the gentleman for yielding. and i end with, let's do it. let's show the american people that we can work in a bipartisan way and solve the problems and meet the needs of the people of this country. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. young: i yield three minutes to my distinguished colleague from kansas, mr. huelskamp. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for three minutes. mr. huelskamp: i appreciate the efforts of my colleague from indiana bringing this before the house for discussion. the reality is the staggering fact is since the president's re-election through to the next debt limit vote, washington will have added about $1 trillion to

our national debt in exchange for what? for no spending reductions, in exchange for maintaining the status quo. this is not as democrats would argue about paying our bills. it is about mortgaging our nation's future. not only must we vote yes on this resolution to disapprove of is culture of debt, but it's time to bring long overdue transparency to the process. as we approach the so-called default deadline, the white house press secretary told reporters that secretary lew did not say we risked default on midnight on october 17 but likely to exhaust our borrowing authority that day. the press corps responded in disbelief that their doomsday default clocks may actually be wrong. but let's be clear. we were not going to default. why do i say that? ask the vice president, who

disappeared for a couple of weeks. it was the vice president who went to china in august of 2011 and told the chinese, we would never dault. moody's said we were not going to default. the market showed little vo tilt. they knew we would not default but a scare tactic to scare the american people and we as elected representatives had no access to the actual data to determine how much borrowing the secretary and administration had left. we were left to take jack lew's word for it. in the future, we must require a full accounting of how extraordinary measures are used, reported and are remaining by any administration. in the words of ronald reagan, we should trust, but verify. madam chairman, earlier this year, president sent us a budget that never balances. never balances. in fact, he has done that now

for five straight years. that means under his plan, time and time and time and time and time again, we would only add to our national debt and never pay it off. a vote today to disapprove this debt limit increase may have little impact on the previous $17 trillion in debt or the next $600 billion in debt that we approved as a body a few weeks ago, but it does say three things. it is time to end our culture of debt. it is time to end the washington status quo. it is time to in the crisis of out of of control spend and massive debt. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: now my pleasure to yield a minute and a half to the distinguished the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one

and a half minutes. mr. honda: thank you, madam speaker, and i want to thank my colleague for yielding time to me. i rise in opposition to this resolution, but i'm strongly in favor of the process that we are using to deal with our debt limit. there's a difference. if this resolution to force an unprecedented default passes both this house and the senate, the president can decide to sign it or not. but even if he doesn't sign it, congress will have the opportunity to stop a debt ceiling raise. this is the process that the senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell, first suggested in 2011 and has been used in debt limit bills to avoid defaulting since. it is good enough to use right now,, it has been good enough to use it for two years and avoid these manufactured crisis on a

permanent basis. this is a process that helps us separate the true need for congressional intervention on the debt limit from both that are manufactured and motivated by politics. this is a process that works and helps us avoid unnecessary pain. we should never have a replay of the hostage-taking and brinksmanship that recently we went through to get to this point. we know what we have to do and we know we should not be playing games with the debt limit. that is why i offered a bill that would make this process permanent and keep this nation fiscally solvent. senators boxer, schumer and hirono introduced the very same bill in the senate. i support this process -- thank you. the speaker pro tempore: an additional half minute. mr. honda: i support this process and i hope my colleagues will support my efforts to make it the permanent solution to our debt crisis. i urge urge a no vote on the

resolution but i support the process. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. young: i yield five minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, my friend and colleague, mr. griffin from arkansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for five minutes. . mr. griffin: i rise in support of this resolution. this is not a resolution for default. this is an opportunity to talk about how we have got to, when raising the debt ceiling, deal with the underlying drivers of the debt. history shows numerous instances in which spending cuts and reforms have been coupled with increases in the debt limit. this dates back to the

inception of the debt ceiling limit in 1917. it also includes two instances during the 110th congress when president obama served in the senate. further, in march, 2006, then-senator obama voted against raising the debt limit. we've heard some folks tonight talk about how they agree with president obama. let's listen to what he said in march, 2006. quote, increasing america's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. leadership means that the buck stops here. instead, washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. americans deserve better. end quote. well, i also agree with then-senator, now-president

obama. it's abund antly clear that -- abundantly clear that no one is going to fail to raise the debt ceiling. in one is going to jep -- no one is joining to jeopardize our credit. but we must speak out on the failure to address the debt drivers. in july, 2008, then-senator obama said adding $4 trillion to the national debt over eight years was, quote, irresponsible, end quote, and quote, unpatriotic. aagree with -- i agree with what he said then. since he became president he increased the total federal debt from $10.6 trillion to $16 trillion. one has to wonder what then-senator obama would have to say about president opa ma. he is continue qulely -- he has

continually called for raising the debt ceiling in his presidency without implementing any of the necessary reforms needed to get our federal spending under control. my focus has always been on working with anyone who is willing to find a long-term solution to washington's spending addiction. this resolution shows the house is ready to start talking across party lines about how to fix our debt problems now, not at the next deadline. late last year cnn reported that the united states spends about 71 cents of every federal tax dollar it collects on what's called the big four. medicare, medicaid, social security and interest on the debt. if nothing gets done, in just 13 years the big four could et upe -- eat up every penny of tax revenue collected by the federal government leaving nothing to pay for the discretionary spending that we like. that includes spending on defense, veterans benefits,

education, roads, national park, museums, medical research, food safety and air traffic control, to name a few. cnn further said that by 2040, more than half of all federal tax revenue would be eaten up by interest payments on the debt alone. in 2006, then-senator obama said, quote, those interest payments are a significant tax on all americans. a debt tax that washington doesn't want to talk about, end quote. but let's be clear. house republicans in congress and the voters who put us here are the only reason, the only reason, anyone in august of 2011, talked about the debt problem and reached a debt deal. otherwise, the president would have simply had the debt ceiling raised and there would have been nothing done structurally and we're the only reason we talk about it now.

otherwise it would be a clean debt ceiling increase with no strings attached. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution and getting our excessive spending under control. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- yields back. the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from michigan is ecognized. mr. markey: is the gentleman eady to close? mr. young: i am. mr. levin: i'll speak briefly, those who vote for this bill, are saying they're willing to use the threat of default once again. nd we shouldn't be doing this. i don't think the nation believed that this government and its programs would be shut because t turned out

of the way the republicans handled it, this government was shut down and programs were very much undercut. -- undercut that were needed by the people of this country. e came within a flicker of default. the consequences of playing with that were very, very substantial. and so now once again, the republicans bring up a bill and whatever the reason is, are giving people a chance once playing with at default is a legitimate method of operation. they shouldn't do this. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana is ecognized. mr. junge: our current national debt exceeds $12 trillion, an amount greater than our annual g.d.p. while i and others in my party agree with many of my colleagues across the aisle agree that risking default is irresponsible it's just as irresponsible to ignore why our debt is so darn high and what it means for the future of our country. mr. young: we can and must work across the aisle to address the largest drivers of our debt and we must begin that work now. not at the last minute or the next self-imposed fiscal deadline. four, those who served here for decades have known for decades that our population was growing older, that health care costs were rising, and that our

long-term fiscal trajectory was unsustainable but nothing has happened. five. this recognition that washington continually misses opportunities to put our country on the path to fiscal health ought to be something on which we can all agree. i urge all my colleagues who want to see our country address long-term challenges to vote yes on this resolution of disapproval. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the statute, the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: in the -- ion of the chair the the clerk: the resolution to suspend the debt limit under

section 102, -- 1002b on october 13, 2014. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on joint pass -- on passage of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. mr. levin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair will entertain -- will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute.

ms. jackson lee: in about two hours today, in houston, at the lakewood church, we in houston will honor the famed, the humble, and the especially "bum" phillips. "bum" orite coach, coach phillips of the house oilers. we lost him october 18, 2013, at his home, his ranch new york texas. i offer to his wife, his sons and daughters, grandchildren and great grandchildren, my deepest sympathy. i know as he's honored this evening there will be a celebration of his life for bum phillips was the kind of character-building leader that led young men into the most winningest franchise of the then-houston oilers. he did it because he had a championship spirit. and he had the ability to add

quips to anything you would ask him. when asked one time about earl campbell, he said, what kind of class is earl campbell in? he may not be in a class all by himself, but it doesn't take long to call the roll. when asked about the dallas cowboys as america's team, bum said, the dallas cowboys may be america's team but the houston oilers are texas' team. tonight i know there will be many who will sell brailt his life and the service he -- celebrate his life and the service he gave. i thank mike barber for organizing this great effort. i will miss being there but bum, i want to thank you, coach bum phillips, i want to thank you for the joy you brought to houston, the excitement of the team, the spirit of winning and lose, the fairness and the balance you added to those young men under your tutelage. you went on to coach the new orleans saints but you will always be special in our

hearts. i hope this body will offer a moment of silence for our dear friend, texas' friend, the nation's friend coach bum phillipsism thank you for allowing this tribute on the floor to this great american, coach bum phillips. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absences requested for mr. rush of illinois for october 28 through october 30, 2013. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013 the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. on this evening of october 29,

we commemorate the one-year anniversary of superstorm sandy hich devastated the east coast . many are still recovering. -- recovering from that tragic storm. and it certainly was a major force to be reckoned with. that force of nature was at one point nearly 1,000 miles wide over the ocean front and when it landed in southern jersey, t was nearly 900 miles wide. impacted so many states, 24 states in number. felt the impact of that superstorm. it was devastation to property. it was devastation to lives. 162 people in the united states

lost their lives. and the fact that the storm surged to some record proportions reminds us of the impact of climate change. now as a member of the new york legation in this house, my area received some mild impact from that superstorm, but ironically the year before, hurricane irene and lee impacted the upstate region of new york and again devastated our area with loss of life, certainly of valuable farmland that was eroded and the damage to communities and businesses and farm piss across the upstate region. these are issues that are brought to mind this evening as we commemorate that one-year anniversary. as many continue to struggle to

recover from the ravages of mother nature. the cost of climate inaction is severe. climate change is an issue of science, it's certainly an issue of public health, and most definitely it's an issue of economics. economic vitality. earlier, the sustainable energy and environmental coalition, which is a number a growing number, 56 to be exact, of democrats in the house, looking to bring about significant policy reforms that speak to the environmental and energy needs of this nation began to provide a laser sharp focus on the cost of climate change to our economy. in 2011 and 2012, there were some 25 extreme weather events that caused at least $1 billion

each or more in damages. total estimated damages were approaching $200 billion and cost to taxpayers, $136 billion. the cost to individual taxpayers $1 billion. talled so we know that there is a tremendous impact here that has en realized by the lack of a focus on to climate change and global warming. as we continue to look at recovery, even from irene and in the upstate new york area as we look at the impact of damage that came with superstorm sandy,

as we look at the damage recently to colorado and if we look at the other extreme, not rainfall and flooding, but certainly drought and looking at the wildfires that consumed some states in our country, there is definitely economic consequence that comes with climate change. in my tower tower in my area that -- territory in my area that is part of the 20th congressional district, it becomes apparent that we need to do more than just replace. as data compiled telling us that treme rainfall has been part f the last decade, we must re-evaluate how to reconfigure a bridge that may cross one of the creeks. i know that that's the case in

many locations, looking at electric utilities, looking the pressures of storm, combine heat and power systems that we'll talk about during this hour, that withstood greater pressure than some of the traditional systems. so we go forward with not just merely replacements, but we go forward with a renewal, a revisioning of how to take that area that was affected and make it work again. that's sound government, that's effective government. tonight, we are joined by several colleagues. we are joined by representative rush -- representative rush holt from the state of new jersey and we're joined by representative scott peters from the state of california. we may be visited by other colleagues. we are going to talk about

impacts they have seen in their region and talk about the science, the economics related to climate change. and so i believe through our coalition have brought about the discussion, have developed the dialogue, have encouraged the moving forward, if you will, on this very important dynamic, undering it full well to move into prevention, because the question asked here by a growing number of colleagues is how long can we afford to go without a plan of action before we understand that the cost of replacement or renewal or transformation is going to drain the taxpayers, is going to drain the individual -- individuals and families impacted, businesses impacted and no one wins in that scenario. representative holt, if you would like to share some

thoughts as we begin our hour, we welcome you. mr. holt: i thank my friend, mr. tonko from new york, for arranging this discussion. it is well worth recognizing the anniversary of this devastating storm. because it might be said this was one of, this was a storm like we've never seen before. that may be true, but i don't think it's correct to say this is a storm such as we will never see again. a year ago, hurricane sandy devastated new jersey and much of the east coast. the storm may have faded from the headlines, but new jersey hasn't forgotten. it is felt in a very personal

and painful way by thousands and thousands of the citizens of new jersey yet today. these citizens of new jersey are not alone. i mean that in two senses. first, we can hear from some who are representative of the millions, but also when we hear from the younger citizens of new jersey who are affected, we understand that they represent the future that will be affected by climate change. quite simply, superstorms like sandy are the new normal and we better get used to it. even if climate change skeptics claim otherwise. i think response to sandy means, of course, tending to the human needs of those who have been

victims of the storm. but it also means making significant investments in power engineering and transportation engineering and rail engineering and wireless engineering and shoreline engineering and river flood control engineering and residential planning and taking steps to deal with the root cause of what we see. we may not be able to stop hurricanes in their tracks. in fact, we certainly can't, but we can make sure that our infrastructure and our environment and our communities are more resilient when they strike. and if, if we work hard as a nation and as humanity, we may climate o stem the change that will result in more superstorms.rful

i know some in washington are skeptical of the role of the federal government in fighting climate change but as sandy's $83 billion pricetag should make clear, society, our economy, yes, and our government, will bear the costs of climate change one way or another. and if we make the investments coming the debts are due, we would do far better than to wait to pick up the pieces after other superstorms hit. and i thank my friend from new york. i will be happy as we go long to talk about some specific people in new jersey who were affected. i will be happy to talk about some of the science that suggests where we are as a world , but mostly i just want to make the point that this is the new

normal that we should be prepared for. mr. tonko: thank you very much, mr. holt. your state, my home state suffered economic consequences to the nth degree and the cost of inaction is painfully borne by taxpayers into the future also. i'm proud of the coalition raising the consciousnessous of the house. we are joined by representative scott peters from california. and representative peters has worked in the environmental arena and contributed greatly in that regard and we are proud to have you join us this evening, representative. mr. peters: i appreciate the chance to speak with you on this special occasion. i'm the climate task force chair of the coalition.

and i rise to recognize the one-year anniversary of superstorm sandy and recognize those who lost their lives and those continuing to rebuild. i might mention for the benefit of mr. holt, i'm a graduate of westfield high and spent my high school years in new jersey and still have sisters in chatham and new providence and visited beach haven for family vacations and i know how hard those areas have been hit both from a personal and economic standpoint. i want to speak about san diego, because my constituents in my 25-year home of san diego have experienced and know the long rebuilding and recovery process after disaster strikes. we have a little bit different effect from climate change and global warming. october marks the 10-year anniversary, yesterday, the

beginning of the largest wildfire in california history. as a san diego city council member at the time, i remember the destructive impact on this fire on people's lives, destroyed hundreds of homes, personal belongings and memories nd the fire burned through 273,246 acres of san diego county, destroyed 2,232 homes and took 15 lives and burned through 95 acres of a state park and blazed through 98% of its mature trees. today, little of the forest has grown back from the bare mineral soil left by the wildfire. the community faced similar damage in 2007 during the witch creek fire and parts of the city of san diego were scarred at that time. wildfires aren't new to california, but the damages to these fires are rising. and if this will sound familiar

when we think about the warmest years on record all being recent, 12 of the 20 most damaging wildfires occurred in the last 10 years. this has huge implications for california's tourism and farming industries. for example, take the rim fire this summer that pushed into parts of yosemite national park and devastated local tourism. after the cedar fire, san diego is at the county and city more prepared to respond to a large wildfire. we have better communication equipment and better communication among agencies and better fire equipment in general. more importantly, worked to minimize further damage through better planning. as tom porter, chief of the san diego fire authority said, it's not about stopping a fire from occurring, but preventing the amount of damage it causes. today, san diego has new planning guidelines and building clearances ot brush

around homes. before that i it was 30 feet. we can save homes and lives. resiliency starts at the local level because they know the conditions on the ground and they are the people that can talk to the neighbors about what they have to do to be ready. we have to make our communities more resilient to wildfires, hurricanes and other extreme weather. in the last five years, wildfires have cost taxpayers more than $1.6 billion a year and last year, $9.2 million were burned by wildfires that is bigger than delaware, rhode island and maryland combined. i introduced the strong act so the federal government can give tools for planning and resiliency to state and local actors. i think one of the first things we notice as freshmen here, one of the first votes we were asked to take was $60 billion for

sandy relief. we spent $136 billion on relief the last two years off the budget. every dollar we spend now on disaster preparedness and resiliency we can avoid future fema expenses. we can bounce back faster and each day that a community is disrupted, we lose economic output. we need to be doing more to support our local communities with emergency management, communication, public health and energy reliability in the event of an extreme event whether it's a wildfire or something like superstorm sandy, a major re-insurer recently ranked the top 10 metro areas that faced the highest value of working days lost from natural perils. nine of them are in the united states. on this occasion, i commit with my colleagues to better protect my district from the devastation caused by extreme weather by working to rebuild stronger and

smarter with a mind for the future. thank you very much for inviting me and i would be happy to discuss some of these items. mr. tonko: we are also joined by representative heck from the state of washington and has a strong voice about the environment to this chamber. we are proud that you have joined us this evening and raise the dialogue that is so essential about climate change, global warming and economic impact that every region is experiencing. so welcome representative heck nd thank you for being such an outstanding advocate. . . mr. heck: i stand here today to recognize the one-year anniversary of superstorm sandy and remember all those whose lives were lost and all those

left behind who were -- who are in the process of continuing to try to rebuild their lives from that destruction, not just in the months ahead but undoubtedly in the years ahead. our nation must, can, and will stand with those families and businesses as they undertake that task all along the atlantic coast as they seek to recover. i come from about as far away from that in the united states as possible, i'm from washington state. the district i'm honored to represent wasn't directly affected by superstorm sandy. however, my district has begun to feel the very real effects of climate change. science has shown that climate change is driving an ongoing decrease in sea water p.h. scientists refer to this as ocean acidify case you might ask, how does that happen? truthfully, and with all due respect to my colleague from new jersey, you don't have to e a jeopardy -- a "jeopardy"

champion to get this you only need to be exposed to a junior high or senior high level biology or chemistry course, it only stands to reason that as more and more carbon is emitted into the atmosphere, not all of it go into the atmosphere, a good deal of it is absorbed by what covers about three-fourths of our little globe, the ocean that carbon degree being absorbed into the ocean does affect the ocean. ocean acidify case then affects sea life. the effect i'm most familiar with is the damage caused to shellfish, including that grown at farms in my district, specifically in mason county. i'm proud to tell you the largest shellfish farm in america, taylor shellfish is located a i long with many others new york washington

state. he acidity of water makes it difficult for the shellfish to grow and harden their shells. and frankly, decreases survival rates. that makes it harder to raise shellfish. well, more than 3,200 people in our state a lot of them in my district, are employed directly or indirectly in the shellfish industry and by growers. the estimated total economic contribution is well over a quarter billion dollars. but that entire industry is threatened by ocean acidify case. resulting from climate change. and it is totally threatened by this. i've said here on this floor and elsewhere many times that a healthy economy is completely dependent and requires a healthy environment. the effect of climate change on washington state's shellfish industry is but one of the clearest examples of that fact.

now washington state has a climate change adaptation strategy that we're working on, with our regional neighbors and i might add with some degree of progress. but without the involvement at the federal level and with the federal government our plan isn't going to be successful. reason -- this is a global problem. it will require global action. global action is only going to occur if the united states leads. which it has so often in the past. so, sir, on this occasion, the one-year anniversary of superstorm sandy, i also commit to better protecting the district i represent, our nation, and the planet, from the devastating effects of climate change. we've been waiting long enough. the science is in. and it is time to act. thank you, sir. mr. tonko: thank you, representative heck. we have also been joined by yet another freshman member of the house, this time from the state

of pennsylvania, another strong friend of the environment, a person who has spent much of his career defending the environment, representative matt cartwright joins us this evening. thank you for participating with the seek coalition. mr. cartwright: it's my pleasure, my dear friend and colleague from new york. it's almost hard to believe, i would say, that we are noting the one-year anniversary of the terrible storm we call hurricane sandy striking our nation's shores. it seems like no more than six or seven months ago that that all happened. maybe one of the reasons is that it was so horrific so damaging, so devastating that the harm continues. there are still families searching for a place to live.

there are still americans still digging out from this problem, trying to salvage the situation for themselves and their families. and so it's almost hard to believe that it was a full year ago that this happened. this is a country that suffered so much in loss because of hurricane sandy. $25 billion in business losses, $50 billion in property damage. i come from pennsylvania and pennsylvania so far as it is from the seacoast, we still had $1 -- we still had 1.2 million residents lose electricity in that event and in my own drigget, up in the hills of the 17th district of pennsylvania, still lost power for 53,000 residents and indeed, i'm so

sorry to say, that we had several lives lost in my district due to hurricane sandy, people who perished because of falling tree limbs, because of hypothermia, due to exposure. we had somebody we lost because of exposure to carbon monoxide because of generator fumes that were emitted during the blackout. and we had tens of thousands of homes and businesses damaged in my district because of hurricane sandy, so don't think we didn't notice it either and don't think we didn't pay attention to the sufferings of all the other americans because of hurricane sandy. there's no denying that is climate change. there's just no denying it. we can argue all day about what's causing it and what to do about it but there's no denying that it's happening and that it's resulting in more and

more frequent weather events like this. more and more severe weather events like this. there's no denying that these things are happening and there's no denying the damage and harm that comes to our nation as a result in 2011 and 2012, there were 25 severe weather events, weather events that caused $1 billion or more in damage each. 25 of them in a two-year span. the total price tag for that, $188 billion in property damage to our nation. and damage to the taxpayers, the taxpayers had to pick up $136 billion of those losses because that's what we do in emergency relief and in flood insurance and in crop insurance. these weather events cost

taxpayers money. we have something in the legislature called the g.a.o. the g.a.o. used to stand for the general accounting office. in 2004, we changed the name to the general accountability office, better to reflect the mission of that office, accountability. proper husbanding of the assets and resources of the federal government. and they keep trk of these things. every year they come out with something they call the g.a.o. high-risk report. the g.a.o. high-risk report is a compilation of all of the risks to the assets and the finances that we have in this nation as part of our government. it's a list of thicks that threaten the assets of the federal government. and for the first time this year, earlier this year, the g.a.o. high-risk report

included climate change as a reason for risks to american government -- to the american government's assets. this is not just about security , it's not just about infrastructure. it's not just about daniel to agriculture. it's not just about risk to the health and the well being of all americans, it's also about financial losses to the american federal government because after all, we are an insurance company. we are a government that insures against flood. we are a government that insures against crop damming. we do that. -- against crop damage. that's something we thought about, something that makes sense for our nation but we end up in the position of a a insurance company and we end up paying the price tag when these storms happen. the g.a.o. recognizes that and recognizes that climate change is a major driver in the risks

to the american finances as a result of these programs that we do. as a result of all of that, in a few months, i will be introducing a comprehensive climate adaptation bill because again, we can argue until the cows come home about what causes climate change and what the effects of it are, but one thing that can't be denied and that the g.a.o. doesn't even deny, that this costs american taxpayers money and the best way to handle that is to plan for it. and so with the support of the white house, i will be introducing a comprehensive climate adaptation bill late they are year, it should be out in a few months. so on this, the one-year anniversary of the horrible tragedy that was hurricane sandy, we remember the devastation, we remember the

losses, we remember the loss of life. and we remember the communities that are continuing to struggle with the damage that was caused by that storm and i say it's time for us also to plan for the future to minimize these losses that will continue to happen as the planet's climate continues to change. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. tonko: the representative talks about the growing acknowledgment by agencies and various elements of government and i can tell you also that, personal experience, watching the constituents in our area understand more starkly and painfully the impact of global warming in the aftermath of irene and lee. and representative peters has long promoted the awareness cob september, wanting people to understand -- concept, wanting people to understand the concept of global warming, climate change. your thoughts on that. mr. peters: it's -- i think

what mr. cartwright said is exactly right. we don't know that our house is going to burn down, yet we buy fire insurance because we know there's a risk of it. i often hear in this building, unfortunately a lot of professed doubt about climate change but even taking that, even though i disagree with it, i think the science is pretty clear if you doubt it, that count mean it's not going to happen, doesn't mean you dent prepare for it or plan for it or make the investments to be more resilient. i completely agree that in the face of doubt -- doubt should not equal inaction. the fact that we have strong evidence that this is happening, that we've had these off-budget expenses is every reason we need here to plan. i would say to folks listening at home they need to get in touch with people in this body to let them know that. one thing i would just add briefly about what we did in san diego, i was chair of a volunteer group on climate

initiative, part of the san diego foundation's effort to do civic engagement. what we tried to do through philanthropy provide good support for decision making about climate. a lot of leadership is happening at the local level. and we provided research for science, we did a study of what the major climate effects in fires, o would be, wild water supply threats and sea level rise. no surprise to anyone here. and we were able to give that information to our elected officials so they knew what we were dealing, what we had to plan with locally. we also did a public opinion to let them know what people thought and it turned out that people in san diego wanted to be leaders on climate action. they wanted to be leaders in the state. they also didn't want the jobs associated with the industrial opportunities to be going to china or texas. o we armed our elected

officials with that information and that made them bolder about taking the actions they needed to take. i bet the people in this body would benefit from the same kind of information and wouldn't be surprised that america is behind us in taking action. particularly on getting ready and being resilient and being prepared to save money down the road. no one likes spending $134 billion off-budget. i didn't, i know my colleagues don't, and there's no reason to prepared.e can be thank you for scheduling this hour. mr. tonko: thank you very much, representative peters. the gentleman makes mention of awareness and there are many visuals out there that strike away.ess even a coast representative holt, i've just noticed recently in the news the reopening of the boardwalk, the very famous traditional boardwalk in your home state, as you continue to recover from the damages of superstorm sandy. the awareness is an amazing

piece of the action here and something as visible and understandble as that boardwalk brings it home for many people far removed from new jersey. mr. holt: some of the repair has taken place. but the recovery takes a very long time. today three new jerseyans came to visit me. one, eric, from jersey city, had been ready to open his bakery with his wife when sandy hit. and the bakery was flooded by six feet of water, a lot of equipment was damaged, and it delayed until fairly recently the opening of that bakery. and of course there was the loss of income to that family. norma from seaside park was displaced by severe flooding. nearly four feet. and we can talk about the depth of the storm surge or the record low bar metric pressure or -- barometric pressure or what the wind speed was.

we community lose sight of the people -- we must not lose sight of the people who were affected here. norma had space hit her home that was flooded so she lost the rental income for that up. and is still cleaning incidentally she's a science supervisor at a local school and is now talking talking personally about the climate change and extreme weather. and april from jersey city is a single mother of a child with asthma, was uprooted because of the flooding from sandy. she's now dealing with mold issues in her child's school as a result of the flooding. so this -- and she's gotten involved in helping low-income families recover from sandy. and i want to make this point about who is hurt the most. researchers at rutger's university in new jersey looked at families that are employed but that are struggling, these

would be asset-limited -- people who are earning but barely earning a living. which makes up really about 1/3 of new jerseyans. they have no cushion. and yet they incurred about 1/3 of new jerseyans -- more than half of the residential damage, the cost. and are or daning only about 1/4, slightly more than 1/4 of the resources that are available for rebuilding. so low-income families who tend to have less safe, less resilient housing, are the ones that suffer the most damage. many who work hourly jobs are less able to deal with the loss of wages that occur from these disasters. and many of them were underinsured and about 90% did not have flood insurance. so it's only a fraction of the people in new jersey but it is

a very large fraction of the people who suffered the really severe damage. and as bad as this is in america, the effects of climate change are even worse in developing countries around the world. you know, developing nations are more vulnerable to crop failure, tropical diseases are very sensitive to climate change. o malaria and diarya disease are more prevalent. now because of climate change and developing nations are less able to afford the damage that results. i got in some trouble earlier this year, well, i was challenged earlier this year when i said week of got to deal with climate change or millions will die. well in fact i looked it up, the world health organization

estimates that climate change already causing 140,000 deaths per year, more than would have occurred without the climate change. primarily in developing countries. so it doesn't take meap years before indeed millions are dying -- many years before indeed millions are dying. that is something of the human cost of what we are talking about. mr. tonko: and in every measurement that we make, there climate impact that calculates -- climate change calculates to the negative. you talk about the impact worldwide. it's the sightings of a perfect storm with less available land as it erodes with these floodings and a growing population worldwide. that is, you know, the formation of a perfect storm. but when we look closer to

home, in these united states, you and i are part of delegations that represent coastal space. and the coastal erosion and the erosion of valuable farmland in my district are realities. and it's measurable already. out ere are warnings there to take action to prevent further erosion and when you think of that impact, it comes in several dimensions, perhaps agricultural in nature, as a major sector of our economy in this country. or in tourism. one of the bits of erosion that i saw, one of the impacts that came was with tourism infrastructure. very valuable and historic sites that were nearly ruined, that are along the beds of creeks and rivers, that are tourism destinations. that now are shut for business as they get repaired.

so, some of these elements are extreme liddell gate -- delicate. and part of our -- extreme liddell kate. and part of our -- extremely delicate. and part of our fabric as a nation, to share our sense of history with either other people of the united states or with visitors that travel to this land, so there are impacts that come. and i would also talk about the infrastructure impacts on the energy side. we witnessed situations where some fared better than others. and i was proud of our organization. you and i are longtime members, charter members. and i'm proud of the fact that we called upon the sandy rebuilding task force to help communities remain build stronger and smarter by having the task force issue guidance , combined heat and power c.h.p. systems, those systems fared well in areas ravaged by

the superstorms. c.h.p., as many know, is an innovative, sort of concept, an energy-efficient method for generating electricity and harnessing heat. the thermal energy that accompanies that. and c.h.p. systems, heat that normally is wasted, allowed to escape, is captured and recovered as useful energy. and that allows us to require and perhaps promote this integrated concept approach for far more efficient than conventional power generation would be. conventional methods have a typical combined efficiency of 45% while c.h.p. can operate as high as 80%. this technology's not only efficient, it also has demonstrated resiliency to extreme weather events. and i can site south oaks hospital on long island, a hospital facility that includes an acute psychiatric hospital,

a nursing home and an assisted living center. during the storm and its aftermath, the hospital maintained full power through the use of its c.h.p. system. so, again, lessons hopefully will be learned. so as we go to replace, we also have to transition some of our thinking and make certain that we're building systems that will be able to endure these storms into the future. and certainly amongst our priorities has got to be this all-out effort to combat global warming. climate change. to make certain that we do all of our preventive measures and then when we rebuild, do it in a way that is efficient, so that sound government, smart government is the tool that's reached to rather than awkwardly replacing in a sort of rush order to get us back to orking -- into a working

progressive outcome, but where we haven't addressed some of the dynamics of the ravages of weather, which is teaching us several lessons as we go through these many storms. so you're absolutely right. the people are the most impacted here, we have to keep them front and center in our thinking, but all these services that either provide jobs for people, provide economic opportunities, economic growth, or meet their public safety needs, or their energy needs, their household needs, their business needs, all have got to be brought into this calculus that is adjusting the concepts based on the theory of climate change and where we again underscore the importance of prevention. mr. holt: if the gentleman would yield. mr. tonko: absolutely. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i want to make sure that all of our colleagues understand that when

my friend from new york talks in the details about new energy systems, he's talking about human welfare. he's talking about addressing the human costs that we're talking -- that we were speaking of earlier. in other words, it is not just a matter of providing energy for people to power our economy and provide comfortable daily lives, it is also a matter of doing it in a way that avoids this enormous human cost from climate change. the way we produce and use energy is the greatest insult to our planet. and it is changing our very climate and we must address that. the sooner we address it, the more effective we will be in addressing it, the more of these costs we can avoid.

it is unmistakable, unequivocal that global warming has taken place and is taking place. the -- last -- just in the past month, the intergovernmental panel on climate change came out with their fifth very carefully prepared report. it says that global temperatures are likely to rise from 1/3 of a degree to 4 1/2 degrees roughly celsius, that sea levels will rise, it is certain that the upper ocean has already warmed over the last three decades. it is certain that the upper ocean has already absorbed carbon dioxide, making it more acidic as we heard from our friends earlier. and most of the aspects of climate change will continue for centuries, wrulted cost in

lives and dollars -- with resulted cost in lives and dollars. if the co-2 emissions aren't brought under control. and in fact some of these costs will be incurred now, even if we bring co-2 emissions under control. because of the damage already done. but it is important to emphasize that it comes down to the human cost. that's what we must not forget in all the charts and graphs and scientific discussions of the causes and effects of climate change. mr. tonko: well, you know, i think it's very important for us to recognize too that here this evening you and several of our colleagues and i have shared thoughts about painful consequences in our given region or have talked about not only flooding but drought situations, wildfires, we've

talked about the economics, the economic impact of climate change with these associated storms, we have talked about the recovery efforts, we have talked about superstorm sandy on this one-year commemoration date, still finding its neighborhoods, its community, its people, its businesses, its farming communities still struggling to recover. we've talked about all of this and now i think we need to close in the remaining minutes we have in this hour to talk bout a plan of action. seic. individuals are talking about a consciousness, raising the consciousness. talking about awareness out there in the community. but there's also a requirement for legislative action. absent that, we move to an

executive order and some have expressed concern about that. but leaving no other option available, the chief executive, the president has moved to resolve some of these concerns through organizations like -- agencies like the environmental protection agency. and so i think there needs to be this dialogue here and in the united states senate working with the president, with the white house, and the administration, to develop a sound package of legislation hat allows us to go forward. it is apparent after the stories heard this season and the personal anecdotes you shared about the people from new jersey and the pain they endured, that should motivate us to move forward with a plan of action, understanding that the cost of inaction is very, very heavy. many have placed threshold dates out there.

they're not that far into the future. 2017. 2020, some say, at the latest. it is our stewardship that is called upon. we inherited this environment, this ert -- this earth from ancestors who preceded us and now it is our challenge, i believe, to hand that to the next generation's unborn in even better working order. with the growth worldwide of population, with the industrialization of many third world nations, the reach to automobiles being put on the highways around the world, the development of power supplies around the world causing this huge growth of challenge in terms of carbon emission and eventually methane that will destroy antibodies out there, so the challenge is before us

and i think we need to go forward with a very focused effort of policy development that can be done in the very near future here in the house. avoiding that, walking awhat from it, denying it, ought to be revisited by those who have suffered heavily from the damages of these storms and certainly as we focus on superstorm sandy this evening, on that one storm here, it's brought to mind many, many situations where people are still suffering, blocks destroyed by fires in superstorm sandy that destroys -- that destroyed neighborhoods. we have a challenge before us, representative holt. mr. holt: the work of the sustainable energy and environmental coalition here in congress is to see that we can move into the future in a sustainable way. it is completely appropriate that we talk about both energy

and environment in this same, really with the same breath because as i said, the way we produce and use energy is the greatest insult to our planet. but it is possible to produce and use energy that will power our economy and provide a good quality of life for 10 billion people in the world, if we're smart. , we f we get to work now can do it in a way that doesn't ruin the world and condemn all of these billions of people to the kinds of superstorms, the kinds of effects of climate change and spreading diseases d so forth, that will result if climate change runs amok. new jerseyans need no further reminder that climate change is

real. evidently, some of our colleagues here do need that remainder -- reminder. and this year, one year after hurricane sandy, we are here to tell our friends, to tell lurour colleagues, this is for real. this is serious. and we should get to work. the work of the sustainable and -- sustainable energy and environmental coalition is dedicated to that work. i thank my colleague, mr. tonko of new york, for his work to protell the seek coalition. mr. tonko: thank you, representative holt. we'll close by just focusing in on this graphic which shows the enormity, immense breadth and epth of this superstorm sandy. many didn't relate that storm to a huge tide coming in and

for any of us who have jumped into the ocean, we know the power of a tide. but to have the highest storm surge ever measured recorded at kings point, new york, highest ever recorded at 14.38 feet, tells a story. the fact that the tide, the water level at batry park in lower manhattan, reached 9.1 feet above the average high tide line. think of it. one inch, two inches, a foot of water additional that come into a flood zone calculates that much more damage. here, what we had with the situation were records beyond nine feet, aproach 10g feet, a storm surge of 14.38 feet. we're talking monumental damage. we're talking about a force that swept away lives, a force

that sparked fires in neighborhoods. a force that wiped out businesses and found ighborhoods vacant a silence that's befallen the given communities because of the ravages of mother nature that can be prevented if we put our minds and hearts and efforts into that concept of being better stewards of the environment. this is a place where a plan of action can take hold. in these halls of government, leadership is called upon. a moral compass points in the frounds of us being of the -- friends of the environment and protection is when it comes to getting things done to avoid the high scale of

economic destruction that's gripped our communities. i still see it in the aftermath of irene and lee in the 20th congressional district of new york. damage done in 2011 is still causing hardship in 2013. impacted by all sorts of weather events that are atypical of our region, tropical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes. that wiped through the area. and required all sorts of volunteerism to enter in. and certainly dollars that were shared from private sector sources and from fema at the federal level and various other programs of the federal government. it will be an exhausting situation that will continue to move he taxpayers as we forward if we don't take

action. on this very solemn day of commemoration, as we call to mind all of the destruction that came into 24 states a year ago this evening, should be all the call to action that is required of us. since then it's been followed by devastation in colorado, wildfires in the southwest, and predictions that more and more damage will be part and parcel to a future that is allowed to go forward without the soundness of stewardship of the environment that ought to be a high priority in this house, in the united states senate, and certainly across this nation. sound leadership begins with the acknowledgment that there's a challenge out there. and that the challenge is then met with accurate and detailed

and information exchange that builds a dialogue that creates a package of response that indicates that we are a compassionate, caring, loving people in this nation, that through the halls of this house can provide hope for this environment and hope to families who have suffered the consequences and hope to generations unborn as we pass to them a stronger sense of stewardship of this earth. so it's been our pleasure to, in this hour, to have shared many of our ideas, many of our concerns, many of the anecdotal bits that personalize the given situation for far too many and we're thankful for the opportunity. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 23, 2013 -- the nuary 3, 2013, gentleman from ohio, mr. wenstrup. mr. wenstrup: tonight, we are here, two weeks before veterans day, to take some time to pay tribute to so many of our outstanding veterans and for the great things we have done.

arthur arab, world class tennis -- arthur ashe, world class tennis player and hero to many, was asked about heroism he said true heroism is sober, it's not dramatic. it's not the urge to surpass others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost. this describe ours veterans so well. serving others at whatever cost. tonight we give credit where credit is due and in honor of veterans day we willingly say, thank you. thank you to the 1%. only 1% of americans have worn the uniform. over that time they've produced exceptional results. on behalf of freedom, time and time again. army chaplain father tim backus was hit by an i.e.d. in mozul, iraq new york 2004 he suffered

severe head wounds from the explosion and from shrapnel. he came home, but over time, he succumbed to these wounds. the troops often asked him, why did you go out so often with us when you could have stayed back on the base where it was safer but no, you came out with us into the fight, into the combat. and he was quoted as say, the safest place for me to be is in the center of god's will. and if that's in the line of fire, then that's where i'll be. as i served as a surgeon in iraq it was part of my job to talk to troops whose comrade was being taken back to the operating room, to talk to them before and after surgery, when they were wounded. and there are things you never forget from that. and i'll never forget going into a room full of marines to tell them about the condition of their buddy before we operated. sitting in that room, hunched over, was a marine, praying his

rosary. and i'll never forget how i felt when i went back an hour later to have to tell them he didn't make it. they fight for their country. but they die for each other. tonight, we are honored to have several members here, members that have served, to tell their story, tell their stories about a hero they served with, to let america know about these great people and to pay respect to our veterans. at this time, i'd like to yield o the gentleman from arkansas, lieutenant colonel tim griffin, a colonel in the united states army reserve jag corps, served in iraq in 2006. he'd been assigned to the southwest medical air readiness support group as a command judge advocate. when he went to iraq he was assigned to the 101st airborne

division. mr. griffin, i yield to you. mr. griffin: i thank the gentleman, i thank the gentleman for his service. i want to talk first here about a fellow screaming eagle, a fellow member of the 101st airborne division. o was wounded in action, sernlt carl moore iii, from bigalow, arkansas. in the second congressional district. my district. sergeant moore new york early june of this year, was wounded while on patrol -- sergeant moore, in early june of this year, was wounded while on patrol in afghan strap. the bullet went under his arm, puncturing a lung and hitting his spine. i pray for his speedy recovery so he can get back to the things he loves. my thoughts go out to his parents, carl and theresa, of

conway, arkansas, also in my district, and his wife heather and their 4-year-old daughter addison. and this is just one example, just one example, of the type of service that we should all be thankful for and tonight i want to thank sergeant karl moore for his service and his sacrifice and for his family's sacrifice. when i think about all the vets who have impacted my life personally, it's a list that too long to read and they've impacted me in so many ways and you know, i often think of my grandfather who served in world war i in france in 1918. i never met my grandfather on my mother's side, he died in 1966, just two years before i was born.

but he was in the army and processed through camp ike in north little rock, arkansas, where i did a lot of reserve duty. i often thought of him when i was there. i went to basic at fort lee in virginia and come to find out that's where he went. he went to fort lee before he went to france. in 1918. and i thank him for his service. i also want to mention one of our most famous vets in closing , one of our most famous vets from the second congressional district of arkansas. and that's nick bacon. who recently we were able to name a post office after nick bacon. he's a medal of honor winner, he passed away recently. was born in carraway,

arkansas, in 1945. he enlisted in 1963 at age 17. and the story goes that he was too young to enlist so he just sort of fudged a little bit on the age. he wept to -- he was stationed in germany for a while, did a tour in vietnam. he was wounded three times during his first tour in vietnam. when the helicopter he rode in collided with another and all were killed but bacon and one other. so he volunteered for a second tour in vietnam because that wasn't enough and i want to tell this -- just read this little paragraph here that talks about what happened that led to him being awarded the medal of honor. on august 26, 1968, while he

in bravo a squad company's first platoon, in an operation bacon and his unit dame under -- came under fire from an enemy position. he personally destroyed the position with hand grenades, but the platoon leader was wounded on open ground. so bacon assumed command, led the platoon in destroying still more enemy implacements. the third platoon lost its leader and bacon took command of that platoon as well and led both platoons against the remaining enemy positions. during the evacuation of the wounded, bacon climbed the side of a nearby tank to gain advantage -- to gain a van tanl point and direct fire into the enemy position, despite being exposed to enemy fire himself. he was personally credited with killing at least four enemy

soldiers and destroying an antitank gun. for his actions in this battle, bacon received the medal of honor formally presented to him by president richard nixon during the 1969 white house ceremony. he earned multiple awards within the military for various accomplishments, in addition to the medal of honor he was awarded the distinguished service cross, legion amerit, bronze star, with two valor devices, two purple hearts. hen he went back to arkansas and years later served as a director of the department of veterans affairs and was reappointed by governor mike huckabee in that position, served until february, 2005. we lost nick in 2010. but he is a shining example of the type of self-less service

that veterans often -- selfless service that veterans often give, demonstrate for their country and i just want to say hank you to nick bacon and the many veterans that he represents, the thousands of veterans from arkansas that he represents. and i just want to thank the gentleman for putting this together. a lot of times we come down here and debate a lot of policy issues, but i think it is the right thing to do to tonight take this time to honor our eterans and i thank you. mr. wenstrup: thank you. i thank the gentleman from arkansas. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from indiana, mr. young, mr. young is a graduate of the u.s. naval academy and he was a rightful platoon commander as well as an intelligence officer, serving a decade in the military as a marine corps captain. mr. young: i thank my friend from ohio for his leadership and these early stages of his first tour in congress. i know he is proud of his

military background, i know he's proud of our nation's veterans. i'm proud of my own service and i'm proud of our veterans as well, the veterans of indiana's ninth congressional district. those veterans i served with. and i'd like to just highlight today one veteran who inspires me, as i reflect upon his life, one veteran that i had the opportunity to get to know when i was at the united states naval academy. he's a fellow marine and veterans day will recall -- we'll recall is a day of celebration. november 11 is a time we celebrate not only those living, but also those who have worn the uniform and died in the course of service. and so today i'd like to talk about my classmate, class of 1995 at an apps i less, doug zem -- at annapolis, doug zembeck.

he's a man of reputation. he was a two-time ncaa all-american wrestler at the naval academy. he's a leader. he had an amazing presence and even among his fellow athletes who spent a lot of their hours preparing for the next match, the next game, he stood out. he worked especially hard, always went above and beyond. and because of his tireless work ethic, because of his infectious personality and a certain x factor about him, doug just earned all sorts of friends and he earned the respect of people in an atmosphere, at a service academy, where leaders and aspiring leaders are competing for the respect of their peers and that really says something. on may 31 of 1995, doug and i were commissioned as second

lieutenants in the u.s. ma kin report. at which -- marine corps. at which point our careers took separate paths. after initial training at the basic school in quantico, doug joined a force reconnaissance platoon. among the toughest of the united states marines and we like to think we're all tough, but we certainly can all agree that force recon marines are -- have earned the respect of their fellow marines and fellow americans. he was among the first to enter kosovo in 1999 with his first unit. and five years later he found himself in command of echo company, second battalion, first marines. during operation vigilant resolve in 2004, doug led his rifle company of 168 marines and sailors in the first ground assault into fallujah. his remarkable leadership earned him a number of declarations -- decorations. these things weren't important

to doug but it's important that our country recognizes our fearless leaders like him. we awarded him a silver star, a bronze star, two purple hearts for the wounds he suffered in the course of the battle of fallujah, his men were so impressed by the bravery and the principled leadership that doug exibbletted that they named him -- exhibited that they named him the lion of fallujah. now, the lion of fallujah would serve four combat tours in iraq. in his final tour, on may 11, 2007, doug was killed by small arms fire. he was always thinking of others first. doug warned the iraqi forces that he helped train to get down. but doug himself did not make it. a mutual friend of ours and fellow naval academy classmate eric capatula, who was very

close to doug, he delivered a moving eulogy at doug's funeral at the naval academy chapel. he said some words that were written by doug himself in the . osing of that eulogy these were principles my father taught me. and here they are. be a man of principle, fight for what you believe in, keep your word, live with integrity, be brave, believe in something bigger than yourself, serve your country, teach, mentor, give something back to society, lead from the front, conquer your fears, be a good friend, be humble and be self-confident . appreciate your friends and family, be a leader and not a

follower, be valorous on the field of battle and take responsibility for your actions. never forget those that were killed. and never let rest those that killed them. that's doug zembeck. may god continue to bless doug zembeck and the wife and beautiful child he left behind. may god continue to bless our nation's veterans and may god continue to bless this great nation, the greatest nation on earth, america. i yield back. mr. wenstrup: i thank the gentleman from indiana. thank you for sharing the story of heroism. so often we don't get to hear about our heroes today. they go unnoticed. what you just spoke on reminds me of a gentleman named mike span. very few people know who mike span is. mike span was a marine and he

joined the c.i.a.. and after 9/11, 2001, he was the first american killed in afghanistan. what's even more impressive about mike span is what he wrote on his c.i.a. application. he said, i believe in the meaning of honesty and integrity. i'm an action person who feels personally responsible for making changes in this world that are within my power because if i don't no one else will. these are the type of people that we're here to honor tonight. next it's my privilege to yield to the gentleman from utah, chris stewart, air force pilot for 14 years, flying both rescue helicopters and b-1 bomber. he holds three world speed records, including the world's record for the fastest nonstop flight around the world. mr. stewart. mr. stewart: thank you, mr. went strup, for organizing this special order honoring our country's heroes. it's a privilege for me to be

with you tonight. thank you. as you mention, i come from a family with deep roots in the military. i was a pilot for 14 years, my father was a pilot in world war ii. four of my five brothers have served in the military. i got to tell you, my time flying in the military was -- in many ways the happiest yeerts of my life. i'd be up flying and i'd think, i can't believe that they pay me to do this. i would do this for free if i could. in addition to my family members, three of my congressional staff are veterans. i know firsthand some of the sacrifices that come with service. the time -- the time away from family, the personal discomforts, the danger, being put in harm's way for many of our soldiers, all to protect our nation and to protect the freedoms of others. there have been great sacrifices in the past, some of those we heard about tonight, i

suspect we'll probably hear about some others. i'd like to mention one man from my hometown of farmington, utah. i think he's a great example of sacrifice and courage. his name is lieutenant colonel jay he's. he spent five -- he sembingssembings. he spent 5 1/2 years -- hess. he spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war during the vietnam war. during this time, you can imagine what he endured. starvation, beatings, isolation , deprivations which it's very difficult, probably impossible for us to appreciate. after 2 1/2 years he was finally given a letter from his family. and as he read this letter he found himself smiling and after a while it hurt because those smile muscles had not been exercised in 2 1/2 years and he'd lost that ability to smile. it was a joyous day when he was returned to his family, his wife and five children.

yet despite all of this hardship, he looks back on his life and his experience with great humility and appreciation. he said, how could i be so lucky, so fortunate? it is a good life. this man was a true american hero. and heroism continues today. this fall i had the opportunity to honor four army soldiers, two of them sergeant darl williams and sergeant john russell, who were jogging here on the national mall one morning had they heard a collision, they looked over and saw that a civilian had been hit by a bus. they didn't hesitate, they knew immediately what to do. they ran over and, using their shirts, they provided a turn kit and they saved this man's life. now, that may seem like a small thing, but it's a great example, once again, of the caliber of men and women that we find serving in our united tates military.

as vet raps day approaches i find myself humbled to share this background and experience with such people. i've always said the military is the greatest incubator for leadership that there is anywhere in the world. we see that demonstrated again and again. finally, let me end with this. the united states of america is a special place. now, i recognize that most nations feel that way. everyone is proud of the land from which they come. i think god intended that they should feel that way, that's a good thing. but even though that's true, there's something special about this place. there's something truly unique about the united states. and there's no better example of that than the young men and young women that serve in our united states military. don't fight to conquer people. we fight to keep the people free. we don't fight to capture a land, we fight to celt a land free and the -- to set a land

free and the only thing we have ever asked is as colin powell wubs said, a small piece of pasture where we could bury our soldier dead. if you've ever been to a military cemetery, and they are spread all over the world from france and england and the netherlands to panama to the philippines to japan if you have walked among those stone cold graves, you know that this is sacred land. a poet once wrote about these soldiers, here, dead we lie, because we did not choose to from nd shame that land which we had sprung. life to be sure is nothing much to give, but young men think it is and we were all yuck. -- all young. i like millions of other americans will always be grateful for their sacrifice.

i honor them and once again am grateful to be amok them. -- among them. with that, mr. wenstrup, i yield back. mr. wenstrup: thank you, mr. stewart. they evening -- i thank the gentleman from utah for his profound words and sharing such a nice tribute. next, i would like to yield to the gentleman from nevada, dr. joe heck, dr. heck is a colonel in the united states army reserve and commands a medical readiness support group and was recently selected for general and continues to serve. over time he's served us in operation joint endeavor, operation noble eagle and operation iraqi freedom. i yield to the gentleman from nevada. mr. heck: thank you, i'd like to thank my brother in uniform, the gentleman from ohio, for organizing this very important special order to pay tribute to some very special people. america's veterans. america's heroes. i'm going to tell a story that

i think epitomizes the very sacrifice and dedication that our men and women in uniform have to this nation. the date was february 21, 2008. the place was al-assad, anbar province, iraq. i was assigned as chief of emergency services and air medical evacuation at combat support hospital. combat support hospital is similar to any inner city emergency department with periods of hustle and bustle, kind of routine stuff, punctuated by moments of controlled chaos and sheer terror. such was that day on february 21. we were taking care of routine cases in the emergency services section, when the radio crackled and we received a call from an incoming helicopter saying they were bringing in a young marine who had been shot in the chest. so of course we quickly focused on the task that would soon be at hand. as the chief i was making assignments, making sure all

our equipment was ready, we were ready to receive this casualty and make sure we could return him home. a couple minutes later, the radio crackles again, it's the helicopter calling in to tell us that the casualty was now unresponsive and they've lost his pulse. a quiet fell over the resuscitation area. everybody was singularly focused on what we were going to do for this young marine when he arrived. helicopter lands, we offload him, get him to the resuscitation suite and start doing what medical folks do. ripping off clothe, starting i.v.'s, doing an assessment, winds up he received a single gunshot wound to the chest just mere millimeters to the side of his trauma plate protecting his center of mass. his eyes stared up at me, lifeless, as i was at the head of the bed. he was unresponsive. we quickly tried everything that we could do to bring this young man back, worked for over

half an hour, doing things that in a civilian emergency department would be considered heroic but we were going to do everything we possibly could. alas, we were not successful that young man was lance corporal drew weaver of st. charles, missouri, and he was 20 years old. he sacrificed and gave his last full measure of devotion to this country. what happened next was even additionally awe-inspiring. my charge nurse, lieutenant colonel now retired maria tackett, came into the room with a bucket of sudsy water and gingerly, carefully started to wash down lance corporal weaver, wiping the dirt from his brow and face, wiping off the now-tried blood from his body. just -- now-dried blood from his body. just like a caring mother she took care of this 20-year-old marine. just when i thought i couldn't see any other acts of

compassion greater than that, two of my medics, young enlisted folks, came in with an american flag. i have no idea where they got it from. might have taken it off the flagpole in front of the hospital. but they carefully draped the flag over lance corporal weaver. then they both took up a position of parade rest at the foot of the bed. while we were waiting for mortuary affairs to come and retrieve lance corporal weaver they stood there. and they stood there. and they stood there. i went in and said, guys, do you need a break? take a break, sit down. their response to me was, sir, never leave a fallen comrade. and there they stood until mortuary affairs came to retrieve that young marine. such is the story of those who sacrifice and of those who are dedicated to those who wear the uniform. i remember their names, i remember their faces to this

day. i remember that day and the actions that those heroic men and women took. from lance corporal weaver to the helicopter pilot to the medics in the back of that helicopter to my team and everything we tried to do. that is why we gather here tonight to pay tribute to these very special men and women. may god bless our veterans, their families, their survivors and may he couldn't to bless the greatest nation on his earth, the united states of america. i yield back. mr. wenstrup: thank you very much, dr. heck, colonel heck, thank you for sharing that story. as a surgeon who served in iraq that was very moving to me. and very familiar. and i think about how my experience in war has changed the national anthem for me. when i hear bombs bursted in

air, rockets red glare, bombs bursting in air, i think of those we didn't save. but when i think of home of the brave, land of the free, i think of those that have saved us. time and time again throughout our history. at this time, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. bent voleyow, he's retire -- mr. bentivolio, retired from the army national guard, served in vietnam as an entry rifleman from 1970 to 1971. i yield to the gentleman from michigan. mr. bent voleyow: thank you. -- . bentivolio: my grandfather served in world war i, my father and uncles served in the 1940's. the gentleman who lived across the street from where i grew up

was a former sailor in world war ii. his aircraft carrier was hit by a kamikaze. down the street a few houses was someone who fought in the korean war. his daughter, cookie, gave me my first kiss. near him lived another veteran who served on a destroyer in the navy and there were two men across the street from him who served together in general patton's third army as part of the force that rethreaved 101st airborne at gaston. i can still see their faces. they played a crucial role in why i served in the armed services. our next door neighbor was charles parker 1r. as a marine in world war ii, he received a purple heart on iwo jima. his son, charles jr., was my best friend. when i think of chuck, i still smile. he was a guy who stood up for the little guy. i remember one time when this big bully picked on this little kid and a fight started.

chuck rushed into action and broke up the fight. he defended the weak. doing the right thing matters. charles parker's name is inscribed on the vietnam wall memorial, panel 40 west, line 25. he died in service to his country on october 23, 1968. doing the right thing matters. but i think my understanding of service can be best summed up in the message of the movie "saving private ryan." perhaps you've seen it. if you haven't, let me tell you what it's about. the movie begins with an elderly man walking through the cemetery off the beach at normandy. his family is quietly following behind him. the scene then shifts to a landing craft heading for the beaches of normandy on d-day. tom hanks plays the part of captain miller, second rangers. as the landing craft hits the

beach, the soldiers quickly experience the horrors of battle. many of his comrades are killed and wounded in the scenes that follow. but after securing the beachhead, captain miller received new orders. his new mission is to locate and bring home private ryan, played by matt damon. who is in the 101st airborne and ryan's three brothers were recently killed within weeks of each other and the army thinks that no family should lose four sons to war. with a small contingent of soldiers under his command, captain miller sets off to locate ryan. over the course of a few kays, his group takes several losses. eventually they find him in a small village in france but he decides to stay and fight alongside his brothers in arms as they defend the small bridge in the village. during the battle, most of miller's soldiers are killed. only two remain. captain miller received a

mortal wound and sits gasping, his back against a motorcycle. he looks up at young private ryan and says, with his last breath, earn this. earn this. the scene changes to a closeup of matt damon, his face changes from young ryan to the older man we met at the beginning of the movie. he's looking over looking a gravestone that reads captain miller, second rangers. old ryan falls to his knees in front of the gravestone and says, not a day goes by that i don't remember what you all did for me. i tried to live my life the best that i could. i hope that was enough. i hope that at least in your eyes i have earned what all of you have done for me.

let me tell you something, not a day goes by that i don't remember what the fathers of my childhood friends and playmates did for us to protect the american dream. and my good friend charles parker. no matter where your family hails from, no matter what your background is, as citizens of this great nation we must never let it be said that we have forgotten what our forefathers did for us. to my fellow veterans of the 182nd field artillery of the michigan army national guard, and to all the veterans past and present, thank you for your service. may god always bless america. and we continue, may we continue to be the home of the free because of the brave. with that, i yield back. mr. when thereupon: i thank the gentleman from -- mr. when thereupon: i thank the eltd --

mr. wenstrup: i thank the gentleman for his words. i'd like to take a moment to tell you about james mcnaughton. staff sernlt james mcnaughton. army resernlt -- reservist, m.p., new york city policeman. we served on the same base in iraq. one day he and two other sergeants were going to be tasked with a mission that was going to be dangerous and one had to go. mcnaughton volunteers over the -- volunteered over the other two. he did that because the other two had children. and on that mission, staff sergeant james mcnaughton was killed by a sniper. and today there are two families that have their father because of james mcnaughton. . this is the type of selfless service we see from our troops day in and day out. i had the opportunity to tell that story on national cable tv.

i got a call from his father, who said they were so shocked to hear their son's name and so honored he was remembered in that way. we need to honor and remember all of our veterans, especially those who have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of us. at this time, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. rodney davis. mr. davis is not a veteran, but a supporter of veterans and he will be speaking on behalf of one of his staff members and outside of his office, he has a sign that says, i hire veterans. i yield to you, mr. davis. mr. davis: thank you to my colleague from the great state of ohio. i'm humbled to be here as a nonveteran, someone who has not served our country and military but so proud of those of you who have. i'm proud to be party of this

special order that you have arranged. mr. speaker, this is an opportunity that many in this country will take for granted as they're watching for this tonight and not know because of the sacrifices of those like my colleagues who have served their country so well that give us the freedoms to stand on this floor and debate the issues that will impact this country for generations to come. i would like to stand here as somebody who hasn't served to thank all of my colleagues who have come to this floor to honor those who have, who have severed with them, those who have served our country and the opportunity to come home and those who have severed our country and paid the ultimate sacrifice. i would like to thank my colleague tim griffin for his service, not only as a member of

our military, but as a member of this congress. i would like to thank todd young from indiana for his service in the military and also for his service in this body. i would like to thank dr. joe heck, for his service for our nation, not only in our nation's military, but also in this body. i would like to thank chris stewart, my good friend and colleague from utah for his service to our country and our military. and again, for his service today as a member of congress. and mr. speaker, i would like to thank one who has yet to rise, mr. doug collins for his service to our country as a member of our military in protecting our freedoms and also for his service to the citizens of georgia. and mr. speaker, i would like to thank you, for your service in our nation's military and for the service that you provide

today for the great citizens in the great state of michigan. thank you on behalf of those of us who have not had the funt to serve. i want to say thank you for giving us this great nation that we now have the opportunity to serve in this body. now, mr. speaker, i am humbled to talk about our veterans and the sacrifices they made to ensure the freedom of every single american and i want to specifically mention a couple of folks. friend of mine who served our country in vietnam, who came back injured and served my state, migrate state of illinois, as a member of the illinois general assembly. he still serves the citizens of illinois today. as somebody who was a

pharmacist, works in the private sector, but my friend, representative ron stevens from illinois, now spends his spare time raising money to help our wounded warriors. he walked miles upon miles over the last two years to raise thousands of dollars to help those who made it back home, but paid a price. representative ron stevens, thank you for your service in vietnam. thank you for your service to the great state of illinois, and thank you, sir, my good friend, for serving this country, for our heroes who walk the streets with us today. and one of those heroes is someone who is not only a good friend of mine, but he works for me in my office in illinois. his name is garrett anderson. he was on patrol in iraq and ran

over an i.e.d. garrett sacrificed his right arm. he sacrificed time away from his family. and he sacrificed the road to recovery for the freedoms that we enjoy. garrett now works with the veterans who are trying to access the benefits they were promised. and garrett was out here with me a few weeks ago as we stood here and did an unprecedented special order that honored all 79 living medal -- congressional medal of honor recipients and stood here gabbard.esentative we stood there side by side to make sure we honored every single recipient. these are our heroes. and i was humbled to see men and

women from both parties come here to honor those who have served our country and showed acts of heroism. but since that time, mr. speaker, we had someone else congressional the medal of honor. and i would like to stand here today, because he didn't have the opportunity to have his story told until now. and i would like to honor today the heroic efforts of the newest medal of honor recipient, captain constituencyon. swens d have made the -- omp n. the number of honor recipients are at 79. our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends.

captain swenson was awarded the medal of honor for the call of duty. his combat team was ambushed as it moved into the village with a meeting with village elders. they began firing onto the team. the captain returned fire and calling in suppressive fire. surrounded on three sides by enemy forces, he coordinated air assets and medical aevacuation helicopter support to allow for the evacuation of the ordered and demanded surrender and rendered medical aid to a fellow soldier. with complete disregard for his own safety, he led a team in an

unarm oured vehicle to recover the wounded. his team returned to the battlefield to recover three fallen marines and one fallen navy corp.man. his leadership and gallantry during six hours, six hours of continuous fighting rallied his teammates and disrupted the enemy's assault. for his courage and heroism that i'm proud to honor the actions oday of captain william d. swenson and i would remiss if i didn't mention the heroes who served this great country in the military, my colleague, duncan hunter, who played a role in making sure that the captain was

awarded this great honor as the recipient of the congressional medal of honor. thank you again, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. wenstrup for what you have done for veterans tonight and what you continue to do every single day that you're hear. may god bless you and may god bless those you have honored this evening and may god continue to bless the united states of america and i yield back. mr. wenstrup: thank the gentleman from illinois for that fine tribute. i would like to share a story m.d. john pryor, joined the army reserve in 2011. seeing his nation was attack, he got in his car and hitch hiked

to ground zero. after he drove as far as he could, he took care of people. after that, he started thinking there is more he could do. he joined the army reserve and we served together in iraq and after returning we did a trauma conference in cincinnati. john returned to iraq in 2008 and on christmas day after attending mass, he walked out and was hit by a mortar and killed. john was the type of person that did all for others. left behind unfortunately a wife and three children. he had a quote, seek always to do good elsewhere. every man has to realize his true worth and give time to your fellow man. do something for those who need help, something that you don't get no pay. remember, you don't live in a

world all your own, your brothers are here, too. it's my privilege to yield to the gentleman from georgia. . doug collins served as the air force reserve chaplain with the 94th airlift wing. he seved as a chaplain since 2002. erved a combat tour in iraq in 2008. i yield to the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: i appreciate that, mr. speaker. it is just an honor to be here tonight. in two weeks, americans will pause to remember, to honor and commemorate the men and women who served the cause of liberty while wearing the uniform. terans origins come from the europe. the guns of world war i fell silent. veterans day holds a special meaning for me and my family.

this day affords the unique opportunity to reflect and remember people i have served along side in the uniform. it also remipeds me tonight of not om those that i served in uniform with but i continue to serve with, who are actually members of my staff. i served with two, one who is with me tonight in the gallery and also a major from the united states army who serves many my d.c. office. it is a reminder of those who serve in the areas which they serve as we go forward in each and every day. as a chaplain serving in iraq, i was privileged to know and omfort those who borrowe the wounds of battle. nurses and doctors fought back against death itself and because

of their skills, more than 98% alive.e arisk alive left that's an amazing statistic and compliment to you, congressman and others, like you. it seemed the others that night from the flight line both army and air force, marine, navy, and even coast guard in the middle of the desert. i think of the young airman i met one night and he didn't come to the gate when i first drove up and i sat there in the truck and he finally came out and he said, i'm sorry i didn't see you sitting there. i said ok, it's just me. but if the colonel might come along. what were you doing? i was ready for some excuse he was tired and he got out a piece of paper and written down and i said what are you doing.

he said i'm figuring out my salary because i have a little bit of money and last year it wasn't good at home. mom and dad, mom was sick and dad got lay -- laid off. but this year, i'm making big money. big money. and he said i want to make sure my nt to send money home so brother and sister can have christmas. . . i'm reminded when i went home, i carry it with me, one time i pick up the stars and stripes, in a war zone you pick up anything to read, i picked up "stars and stripes," i opened it up, they carry pictures of those who did not make it. they died in combat. and i remember opening that

page up and i looked and along the bottom there was eight pictures. and i remember distinctly four of them because i stood beside their bed and held their hand. i carry that picture and that flag and as congressman when strum -- wenstrup says, the national anthem, if it ever was just a song, it's a spirit. that lives. the ninth district of georgia has a great legacy of citizens who have proudly served in the armed fores. this spring we watched -- lost one of our greatest veterans, colonel purcell. he was the highest ranking army officer held as prisoner of war. he was commissioned lieutenant through the army reserve training center at my alma mater. he was sent to europe. in august, 1967, a year after i was born, he was stationed in vietnam.

colonel purcell became a p.o.w. after his helicopter was shut down. vietnam. 1968. most of his time as a p.o.w. was spent in solitary confinement. he was unable to be with other prisoners until shortly before he was released osm in 1973, he was freed as the u.s. was pulling out of vietnam. during his military career he was awarded the silver star, the legion of merit, the bronze star and purple heart, along with a tra chutist and combat infrantry badges. he was laid to rest with full military honors. colonel purcell's courageous story is one of many we remember on veterans day. he will always have the thanks and admiration of many georgians. on this veteran days i will think about a young marine from my hometown of gainesville. sergeant adams was on patrol in afghanistan when he stepped on

an i.e.d. it left women out legs, his right thumb and index finger. he said i fought for my country, the corps and now i'm fighting for my life. he is being retired from his marine corps and he is searching for a way to serve. his goal is to -- he's been fitted with prosthetics, his goal is to run the marine corps marathon. attended a service for comchak.imothy these these are a few of the votens what touch midlife. i i think back to the men and women of our armed forces who i had the pleasure of serving with, i think of the conversations, the laughter and the tears we have shed. it is often the very short or

hundred of -- one-time interaction with comrades in arms that lead the most indelible memries and on my desk, if you come to my office, if you can find it on the fifth floor of cannon, you'll see on my desk a bracelet made for me by a young lady who was struggling every day and i'd go by and see her and take her stuff and i'd give her some encouragement or give her a coke or give her candy. one night i came by and she handed it to me and she said, chap, you're always giving me something. i want to give you something. she gave me this parachute bracelet which sits on my desk right now. i don't care what goes on on the floor of this house, in the big sense. because all i have to do is member that bracelet on my desk and remember why we are here. and what that flag means.

this veterans day let us commit ourselves to express our gratitude by remembering their service and sacrifice and of course thanks each of our veterans in our own lives and our -- in our own way. before i yield back, i want it to be known the one who put this together, who has become a valued part of my life in the time we have served together. lieutenant colonel brad wenstrup served in the united states -- serves in the united states army reserves since 1998. in 2005 and 2006 he served a tour in iraq as a combat surgeon and was awarded the bronze star in the combat -- and the combat action badge for his service. in his time in congress he's fulfilling his reserve duty by treating patients at walter reed medical cent for the bethesda, but i commit to you, mr. speaker, he is serving every day. on a place called capitol hill. with the gifts that he has been

entrusted to by his creator and also soon to be a dad. who will pass along this legacy of service to his child. with that, i yield back. mr. wenstrup: i thank the gentleman from georgia, my dear friend, chaplain doug collins. thank you for those kind words. we're honored to serve here with so many that have served not all of them here tonight on both sides of the aisle. i think of my colleague, tammy duckworth who suffered severe injuries in iraq, bilateral leg pross thee cease, she had the prostheses, she served again, not only in the guard but here on capitol hill. it is an honor to serve with her here on capitol hill. teddy roosevelt said it's not the critic who counts or the man who points out how the

strong man stumbled or where the good deeds could have done better. the credit is to the man in the arena whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood. our veterans serve they fight in war, wars they didn't serve. those who serve in war are probably the greatest lovers of peace, the ones who appreciate it most. our great american veterans may be best described in this way. they are what others care not to be. they go where others fear to go. and they do what others fail to do. and they ask nothing from those that gave nothing. i want to thank everyone for being here tonight. to honor those that felt they should give of themselves for something greater than themselves. you know, when i was child, we'd go to bed at night, we'd kiss our parents good night and go to bed, my father would come in one more night, he'd take

his thumb and make the sign of the cross on our forehead. when you tuck your children in at night you go to bed, and you close your eyes, and you feel afe and secure and unafraid, remember why. and with that, mr. speaker, i ield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, for 30 minutes. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. tonight we will be talking about a very important accomplishment that this body, the house of representatives, can make on a bipartisan basis for our country. and that is immigration reform. by refusing to act on comprehensive immigration reform, there is great cost to the american people in job the

undermining of the rule of law and destruction of the opportunities that will arise by tackling this head on. the longer bewe delay passing comprehensive immigration reform, the greater the cost of inaction in both economic, human, and security terms. every week that congress is in session for the rest of the year, i'll be here on the floor talking about the cost of naction on immigration reform. in this, there's a clear path forward a comprehensive immigration reform bill. a compromise took a little give and take from both sides. bill supported by the labor community, by the faith community, by farmers and farmworkers that passed the united states senate with more than a 2/3 majority. we've introduced a similar bill here in the house with a growing numb of bipartisan co-sponsors and are encourage the speaker and majority leader to bring this bill to a vote

with we have confidence it will pass. our economy will suffer tremendously if we fail to pass comprehensive immigration reform. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, immigration reform helps grow the economy, creating between half a million and a million jobs, reduces the deficit by over $00 billion, bolsters job creation an strengthens the viability of social security and medicare. what's not to like? let's restore the rule of law to our country. let's improve our security. and let's unite families in human terms to -- yibet families. in human terms the cost of inaction is having a heavy toll. over 100,000 deportations have taken place since the senate passed imfration last june, including thousands who are noncriminals who would have benefited from immigration reform but instead became a cost to the taxpayers to the

tune of more than $200,000 each to deport. take a few examples of my district -- from my district of people that immigration reform will help today. diana and cathia are two young women who are high school students brought here from mexico as young children by their parents. they're excellent students, both straight a students, want to go to college. kcathia wans to go toed me cool school, diana wants to study cinematography. both are applicants to the doca program. but that's only a temporary fix for a limited period of time. they're both ambitious, capable young women who want to give back to our country and make it stronger, if only we will let them. t's time to find a way for them and so many like them to pursue their dreams without having to live in constant fear. because of lack of status.

another woman in my district who feels the pain of our current broken immigration system is nor masm she came to the u.s. over a decade ago, like so many of our ancestors including my great grandparents in search of a better life. she's the mother and primary caretaker of twin boys who are u.s. citizens. both her children suffer from medical conditions and she works incredibly hard to ensure that her kids have access to what they need. she's a hard working, honest person, a leader in her community, doesn't have any criminal history or pose any kind of threat to national security. all she wants to do is give back to our country, to pay taxes and contribute. like every other american. but nevertheless, norma was placed in deportation proceedings last year following a traffic stop. if we don't reform our broken immigration system today, how any more families will be torn

apart? people like i have talked about feel the impact of the failure to act on the senate immigration reform bill every single day. there's no excuse for inaction. we need to finalize and pass immigration reform this year. i'll be talking more about the cost of inaction in a few moments but i want to yield to my good friend and colleague from florida, the sponsor of h.r. 15, mr. garcia. mr. garcia: thank you, mr. polis. mr. speaker, i have the distinct privilege of representing a district that has been in the last several decades, been in large part built by immigrants. i lived in south florida during some very tough times. for the im-- tough timers in immigrant community. i remember as a young man seeing bumper stickers on the backs of cars that said, would the last american please bring the flag.

but you know what? the flag still flies high in miami. it's a thriving, growing economy and a beacon of work and opportunity for millions. people from all over are drawn to my community because they believe in the american dream. my constituents know that immigrants only add to the american way of life. they make our country better, they create more opportunity for all. the vast majority of americans recognizes, some poll -- recognize this. some polls show that 80% of americans support comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship. fixing our broken immigration system isn't something we can take on a step-by-step basis. only addressing parts of the problem. i was proud to introduce

comprehensive immigration bill with my colleagues jared polis and several others in a bill that secure ours borders, builds our economy, provides a way forward for millions of undocumented individuals living in the united states. with every day that passes, millions don't live in the shadows and jobs continue slipping away overseas. this is an issue that is about justice, it's about fairness, it's about ensuring america's economic prosperity. in florida alone, legalizing all of the currently undocumented immigrants would generate $1.3 billion in additional tax revenues and create 97,000 new jobs. .

this will foster innovation, increase productivity, raise wages and help create thousands of jobs. and the fight for comprehensive immigration reform is one that makes all americans better, makes our country richer and creates opportunity for all. in the history of the world, there has never been a great nation that was shedding citizens. in fact, great nations welcome opportunities. the last few weeks have not been -- have not caused or cast a positive light on the house of representatives. but this is an issue where we can repair that broken image. it is possible to find a bipartisan compromise. it's the right thing for our nation to do. and the cost of inaction are simply too high. more than enough members of this chamber understand the benefits

of immigration, understand that it is a necessity for our country's prosperity and understand that is what we will do. let's do it now. let's do it right. let's get it done. with that, i would like to yield back to the gentleman from . lorado mr. polis: we have here another on t leader in the debate reforming and replacing our immigration system, my colleague from the state of california, r. takano. mr. takano: while mr. takano is getting ready, i want to talk about the overwhelming public

support for immigration reform. more than 70% of the american people support immigration reformu including republicans, independents and democrats. the american people know that what we are doing isn't working and continuing to perpetrate the undermining of the rule of law in a populationful 10 million people that are here illegally, it will only continue to hurt the american people. i would be happy to yield to mr. takano. mr. takano: i thank the gentleman from colorado for yielding time. reforming our immigration system is one of the top issues in our nation and i was happy to see the senate act this past june when it passed a come puerto ricans i have immigration bill with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. the bill solves many of the problems. it creates a pathway to

citizenship, secures our borders, addresses the current backlog and helps the dreamers who were brought here through no fault of their own. unform, the push for immigration reform hit a brick wall when the legislation moved over to the house and speaker boehner flatly refused to bring it up for a vote. sadly, this isn't the first time that speaker boehner and his irresponsible faction of the house republican caucus has stood in the way of what's best, even though there is a clear governing majority that is ready to act. and despite speaker boehner's desperate attempt to follow the so-called rule to require votes on bills that are supported by a majority of house republicans, the governing majority has been able to pass several pieces of

substantive legislation this year. just who is this governing majority? it's made up of nearly the democratic caucus and handful of moderate sensible republicans. in january of this year, a governing majority of 172 democrats and 85 republicans came together to avoid the fiscal cliff saving our economy from ruin. several weeks later, when a majority of the republican caucus stood oppose todd relief for the victims of superstorm ndy, it took an overwhelming republicans and democrats. the house passed the violence against women's act, providing protections for victims of

domestic violence with unanimous democratic support and portion of the republican caucus. in march, facing the deadline of a government shutdown, a temporary budget, also needed the support of democrats to pass the house. and timely, despite claims indicating that the votes weren't there to pass a clean r., the house reowed the government with republicans and democrats. the reality is to pass anything with substance, speaker boehner needs to stand up to the extreme faction of his party, stop blocking important legislation and get out of the way and let the house of representatives work its will. america needs democrats and republicans to come together, we have seen what can be accomplished when we are united.

and who are we kidding about the has earth rule? the speaker has already violated multiple times this year. in the leadup to the most recent crisis, he said he didn't want the government to shut down or default on its debts. if the speaker would have meant that he would have avoided a 16-day shutdown that cost our country $24 billion in economic activity. the governing majority has done its job with the fiscal cliff with aid to superstorm sandy and with the violence against wim act and with the recent government shutdown and government shutdown negotiations. know that the house of representatives are going to pass meaningful

legislation that addresses our challenges. the governing majority is ready to do its job once again with comprehensive immigration reform as millions of americans and aspiring of americans are waiting for this body to act. it's time to put aside the displays, mr. speaker. let us govern so we can bring our brothers and sisters out of the shadoogs. i believe that if the senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill, the majority would do what's right for the american people and pass this important legislation. let's vote on the gnat's bill and fix our broken immigration system. that time is now. thank you. and i yield back. >> i take the opportunity to

point out that as he talks about the governing majority, we are seeing a coalition already build around immigration reform. mr. garcia: in a bill that was filed less than three weeks ago, we have 187 co-sponsors, which puts us in a very good place to pass it if allowed to come to the floor. that means already 95% of democrats have signed onto the bill. that means that a democratic senate already passed out a bill and the president stands ready to sign a comprehensive immigration reform if it gets to his desk. our hope is in the days to come in the 17 days left of working session before the end of the year, that we will have and find a will to bring something to the floor to move something forward.

i yield to the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i want to talk a little bit about supporting colorado and colorado purple state, four republicans and three democrats in our congressional delegation. a state that is affected by immigration, a strong tradition . immigration here's some recent polls in a few of our recent polls. the 13th congressional district represented by congressman tipton, 77% of the people, this is the district including grand junction and aspen, 77% of the people in the district support immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship. only 17% opposed. in the neighboring district of

my good friend gardner. 76% support immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship. ke coffman from a h aurora colorado, 77% support citizenship. and failure to act and avoid this issue is not delivering for the american people. one cannot spy out of both sides of their mouth for forever and say that before immigration reform and not give this body the ability to pass immigration reform. the american people, mr. speaker, are smarter than that. it has been 123 days since the senate has passed an immigration reform bill. and you know what? we have h.r. 15 in the house and we want it to come to the house. if there are other immigration reform packages.

some of the members have pulled out. if there are other ideas, let's put them on the table. inaction for 123 days is inexcuseable, inexcuseable. the time for action is not now. wasn't just yesterday, it was last year, five years ago, 10 years ago. we can't afford to continue to wait day after day, week after week, year after year without taking action. the american people, mr. speaker, have had enough and demanding more of us. there is something we know for sure. the enforcement-only approach has failed. it hasn't worked. the number of people here illegally has only increased. we increased the budget of the border patrol 10 times in the number of unauthorized people increased three times by that same period. if we increase that budget 20

times, does that mean it will quadruple? maybe. just look at the data. a there is a human toll, mr. speaker. over 5,000 people died crossing the u.s. mexico border, looking for a better life just as my ancestors did, just as your ancestors did. from 1998 to 2007, over 100,000 parents of u.s. citizen children were removed from this country. jill johnny and sarah coming home from school, they were american and were born here, coming home from school, sorry, mom is in deportation proceedings. your mom won't be here for you, little johnny, little sarah. what did she do, a taillight on her car, 10 miles over the

speeding limit. i got a speeding ticket, i have a two-year-old son, mr. speaker. to think that something like that could be ripped from my family, not for months or years, but forever. there is something called a lifetime bar, mr. speaker. being taken away from my family, mr. speaker. i would risk crossing that border and dying like 5,000 people did, to be with my sovereign, mr. speaker. and that's an american trait. that's what a good american arent would do, mr. speaker. let's let people give back to our country and provide for their families. that's an american value. and we can do that now, my colleague, mr. takano, talked about a governing majority.

there is a majority to pass the immigration reform bill now. i can't tell you whether it's 25 republicans, 45 republicans or 80 republicans, but they will join nearly every democrat, if not every democrat, in passing immigration reform now. i would like to yield to my friend from miami and asked him if he has ever seen of this coalition of agriculture, faith-based, unlikely suspects coming together around common sense? have you seen this public support on any other issue and what do you think it means? . . mr. garcia: i thank the gentleman and i think he's right. this is unprecedented, the

labor department, the community, everybody coming together. when you think about the opportunities that are miss, all the places doing better than us in competition because of the pathway forward. i mention to the gentleman from colorado, more 130,000 chinese students in the united states right now. there's somewhere in the neighborhood of 90,000 indians studying in the united states. there are 70,000 south koreans studying in the united states. and under the present immigration system if your company thinks, hey, i can hire this guy and it will be good for us, you just can't. they've got to go home. so we're sending them home to come back and compete with our workers when we could offer them a future here and they could create a better future for other americans. this is something we've done always. we take people from all over the world and we put them to work for america in the best interests of america. yet under our broken

immigration system, you just can't do it. i yield back to the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i represent a district with two fine universities, the university of colorado boulder, and boulder university, they have graduate programs, engineer, biological sciences, you name it. like many institutions of higher education, a high number of the students there are foreign national whors studying under student visas. under our current immigration policy, mr. speaker, our state, our public state institutions, we provide this world class education for people that feel a need in the economy. they're going to be great engineers, great mathematicians, great computer scientists. they graduate with a masters, a ph.d., what do we tell them? go back to another country and compete against us. compete against us. we're telling them to compete against us. how does that make sense, mr. speaker? what we need to do is provide a

way, and the senate bill and h.r. 15 do this, where people with advanced degrees in these fields are able to stay here. today's companies don't care where the jobs are. you can be a computer programmer in india. you can be a computer programmer in france. you can be a computer programmer here. out of convenience we'd rather have you here but the job is going to follow you. the job is going to follow you, not the other way around. in addition, if we act with h.r. 15 it will lead to over $5 billion in additional tax revenues. it'll reduce our deficit by over $200 billion. it'll create between three quarters of a million and a million jobs. it includes provisions around startups and entrepreneurs, people who want to come here to found companies and hire americans. don't we want that? don't we want jobs for our brothers, our sisters, our friends and neighbors?

jobs for heren . h.r. 15 is the biggest jobs bill the house of representatives. that's another reason we need to pass it. i yield to the gentleman from miami. mr. garcia: i thank the gentleman from colorado. i'd also add to that, the report to the congressional budget -- that the congressional budget office has released. we know that in the next 10 years, if we move forward with comprehensive immigration form, it produces $175 billion to the u.s. economy. here's what we know even further, that the 10 years $870 hat, it produces billion to our economy. this is a net positive overall. for my colleagues across the aisle who love to talk about deficit, who love to talk about the fact that our country isn't bringing in revenue, here's a revenue that's sitting there. people that are work, people that are ready to contribute to the american economy. and they're there. and we know that if we bring

them out from the shadows, give them a pathway forward, they make our nation richer, they make our country better. i yield back to the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: we can improve our security, we canerer re-store the rule of law, create jobs for american rerks deuce our deficit, all in one bill? what's not to like. i'd like to yield to my colleague from probably the longest congressional district in the country, i don't know if it's the large nest area but i think it's probably the longest in the country, my good friend from texas. >> thank you for yielding. a ere visited today by group called badges, bibles and business. one bible passage quoted to me today is in the bible, the gospel according to st. matthew, he talks about, i was hungry and you gave me to eat, i was thirsty you gave me to drink, i was a stranger and you took me in mr. gayay go: that's

the genesis, i think, from people who want, from a christian ethics perspective, to support immigration reform. you also have the people who support immigration reform, frankly, because of the idea -- that they ents are parents. any parent understands once you hold the kid in your arms the first time you do anything you have to do to make sure your little boy or little girl eats. mr. gallego: for me, the economic arguments also are so important. the u.s. chamber of commerce, for example, has cited a study that shows that immigrant-owned businesses would generate more than $775 billion in revenue. with $125 billion in payroll, $100 billion in income. that's pretty impressive you know what percentage of the american work force they could employ if they were unleashed? they could employ one out of

every 10 workers. one out of every 10 workers. which is just a phenomenal statistic. the other thought that i find really interesting is, of course, that immigrants are also consumers. and when they consume, they further drive the job growth. now many members of congress and certainly many people from texas are familiar with george w. bush. and you know, there's now a george w. bush institute, were you aware of that? if the george w. bush institute, they've been a strong proponent of immigration reform and they've produced a 65-page document that's titled "growth and immigration" which states that immigrants serve as catalysts for growth. in fact, the report from the george bush institute says that communicating the positive economic contribution of immigrants is the first step to helping americans recognize the

hidden advantages of immigration. the institute is confident that bipartisan solutions exist and when properly informed, americans agree more on this topic than they realize. that's impressive coming from the george w. bush institute. and further, the immigration -- the congressional budget office shows immigration reform wouldn't negatively impact u.s. workers and would reduce the federal deficit by $175 billion. i think it's important we get the facts out and make a difference because comprehensive immigration reform is so important to everybody from across the board. i've never seen so many groups unified to pass comprehensive imdepration reform. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman for his words. 123 days, that's 123 days too long. let's pass immigration reform now, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced spoil january 3, 2013, the chair

recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, for 30 minutes. mr. franks: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker new york 2012, the supreme court narrowly and specifically upheld the individual mandate at the heart of obamacare under congress' general taxing power. the court specifically noted that, quote, even if the taxing ower enables congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health care insurance, any tax must still comply with the other requirements in the constitution. let me read that again, mr. chairman. even if the taxing power enables congress to impose a

tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with the other requirements in the constitution. mr. speaker, in short, obamacare was upheld as a tax. the supreme court did not and has not yet considered a challenge to the affordable care act's taxing provisions on the grounds that it violated the origination clause in the united states constitution. mr. speaker, it most certainly did exactly that. the origination clause is found in article 1, section 7, of the constitution and states, quote, all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives. unquote. in creating obamacare, senator harry reid took an entirely unrelated bill, h.r. 39 -- i'm sorry, h.r. 35950, containing just 714 words, that did not

raise taxes and stripped it of everything but its bill number. he then put the 400,000-word obamacare that raised taxes in 17 different places into its empty shell. through this bit of legislative trickery, mr. reid claims that obamacare originated in the house. when in fact every last provision of obamacare included the largest tax increase in american history -- including the largest tax increase in american history, all came from the senate. this sort of procedure absolutely ignores and vacates the founders' intent and renders the origination clause of our constitution completely meaningless. if it is allowed to stand, the origination clause in the constitution is a dead letter. mr. speaker, this is not a small or marginal issue. the principle behind the

origination clause was the moral justification for our entire war of independence. its importance was expressed through the virginia house of burgesses, the stamp act, congress and the first continental congress, all of whom petitioned the crown and parliament in england for redress of their tax grievances. it was with these realities in mind that the origination clause of our constitution was written. and without it at its core of the great compromise of 1787, the 13 original states would have never agreed to ratify the constitution. mr. speaker, when our founding fathers wrote the constitution, they knew it was vital for the power to raise and levy taxes to originate in the people's house, whose members are closest to the electorate with two-year terms, rather than in the senate whose members sit unchallenged for six-year term, who do not proprorgsally represent the american population and who already enjoy their own unique and separate senate powers, divide